The independent view: STV for local government in 2015

The Liberal Democrats' mistake in 2010 was not to insist on STV for electing MPs - but merely to accept a referendum on a miserable little compromise - as a condition of entering into a coalition. This is not recriminatory. I appreciate the problems and pressures of negotiating a coalition and that senior Lib Dems wanted to create stability and help repair the damage to the economy.

I say it was a mistake not just with hindsight. I have believed it for about 50 years.

The senior party in a coalition will tend to take the credit for popular decisions and blame the junior partner for unpopular decisions. STV, as well as being good for the country, would also reduce the electoral penalty of this.

Lib Dems are sometimes reluctant to argue for STV because are embarrassed that they might seem to want it only for their own benefit, so let's state clearly:

• The Labour and Conservative parties argue for FPTP because it benefits them; it gives them an unfair advantage.
• STV is the best voting system for voters.
• If Lib Dems wanted electoral reform only for the benefit of their own party, they would not argue for STV, but would happily accept AMS, AV+ or some other inferior PR system.

Unfortunately, the result of the AV referendum has delayed reform of the way we elect MPs but STV for local government in England and Wales could be attainable in the next Parliament. (Scotland and Northern Ireland already have it.)

The prize for the country would be more democratic local government with more accountability to real opposition in what are now one-party districts. The prize for Lib Dems would be an upsurge of Councillors and activists in districts that are derelict now. The Labour and Conservative parties would also gain by increasing their Councillors and activists in each other's heartlands.

Another balanced parliament in May 2015, with the Liberal Democrats holding (or even sharing) the balance, could make local reform real but only if the Liberal Democrats hold out for it and refuse to enter a coalition without it and if their prospective coalition partners are hungry enough for power to concede it.

Note: STV is Liberal Democrat policy, but readers not familiar with the system can visit www.stvAction.org.uk to find information about it.

* Anthony Tuffin is a former Liberal Party activist, independent of party politics since 1988 to devote his political energy to electoral reform. He is Chair of Make Votes Count In West Sussex, editor of STV Action and publisher of "STV News"

Comment - Richard Fife - Gedling

This is absolutely right.There must be NO coalition with anybody after May 7th without STV in local elections. No referendum: no precedent for that in the Local Election system, and STV is already established (without referendum) in UK local elections e.g. Scotland and NI.No argument about the "personal link," the spurious self-serving rubbish argument Tories come up with about Parliament, because nearly all Council wards are already multi-member, and all the better for it.