I FEEL I should congratulate the vocal supporters of electoral reform. In the past few days they’ve managed to control the media agenda and paint anyone who opposes them as out-of-touch dinosaurs, cynically clinging to first-past-the-post (FPTP) like a third world dictator refusing to acknowledge that the riots outside his citadel walls mean his reign is over.

But claiming that the opposition have no principles or arguments is itself an anti-democratic, lazy way of leading any debate. As a supporter of FPTP I can acknowledge that the system has its faults and that the alternatives have some merits. From what I’ve seen so far, supporters of reform cannot make a similar leap.

So I’ll make it easy from them: all electoral systems are rubbish. I just happen to believe that first-past-the-post is a bit less rubbish then the rest.

Because if what you’re looking for is the perfect system that will accurately reflect every vote cast and provide good government, then don’t bother. Go and take up something useful instead. Like gardening. Or stamp collecting.

All electoral systems are flawed in some way. They all have disadvantages and weaknesses. And when the LibDems and their supporters in the Labour Party claim otherwise, they’re deliberately trying to deceive.

So, as I say, FPTP is a rubbish electoral system. But let me qualify that: it’s a rubbish system for electing a legislature. As a system for electing a government, it’s actually a very good one. So as this debate continues, the various proponents of the different systems should be clear about what we think general elections are for – are they primarily for electing 650 MPs? Or for electing a government?

I watched a news report on Friday evening in which LibDem MP Simon Hughes was doorstepped by the cameras as he left LibDem HQ. How were the negotiations with the Tories going, he was asked. Hughes smiled enigmatically and refused to comment.

So, this is The New Politics, is it? This is the transparency and accountability that the reformers have been looking forward to? In almost any system other than FPTP (and, arguably, the Alternative Vote) this kind of secretive, grubby horse-trading between the parties would become an inevitable part of the electoral process. Yes, FPTP has produced this particular result – for the first time in 36 years. But as we know, this is the exception rather than the rule. Under most forms of PR this result would be replicated each and every time: the voters have had their say – now we can ignore them and negotiate away the policies they’ve just voted for in exchange for ministerial cars. Nice.

And how can it be remotely democratic to give the failed leader of the third most popular party in the country such king-making powers? Why is Nick Clegg’s opinion on who should form the government of any interest to anyone? In Scotland – often erroneously cited as an example of PR working effectively – the LibDems came fourth in both the 1999 and 2003 elections, yet ended up sitting round the Cabinet table. I’m not making an argument for either of the two other parties being there instead, but what’s so democratic about losers being in government while more popular parties are excluded?

Then, once the LibDems had duly leap-frogged their more successful rivals and been given a place in government, they insisted that their senior partner – Labour – ditch their support for FPTP in local government elections in exchange for LibDem support. This we duly did, without any significant level of debate in the party and without any reference back to the voters who had just made Labour the biggest party in Holyrood. Still, what do voters know, eh? After all, such complicated subjects are just too difficult for non-politicians to get their pretty little heads round, aren’t they?

At least under FPTP, whatever its disadvantages, the party that’s elected has to implement the policies in its manifesto. And if it doesn’t, it can be kicked out. Not so with most forms of PR. Have you been listening to some of the arguments in favour of reform, particularly on the Left? Reform would mean a permanent centre-left coalition in this country, they say. But since when has permanent government by the same two parties been remotely democratic? This argument, to me, is the best reason not to go for reform. I’m a democrat. I believe that if we’re beaten by the Tories, they should form the government. It’s up to the electorate to decide if they want a change of government, not poitical parties.

Yesterday a senior government minister made the point to me that under proportional representation, Thatcher would never have been allowed to govern in the 1980s. But Labour didn’t lose in the ’80s because of the electoral system – we lost because we didn’t deserve to win, because our policies were crap. The system forced Labour to take a long, hard look at itself, to reform itself, to come up with policies that would actually resonate with voters. Under PR, we would never have had to make any effort to connect with the voters; we would simply have picked up the phone to David Owen or Paddy Ashdown and formed an anti-Tory majority. Undemocratic and lazy.

But what’s wrong with coalition government? Nothing at all. In fact, I’m in favour of coalitions. We’ve had coalition government in this country for decades. Labour is probably a broader coalition than what already exists in some proportional European systems. Any party that can accommodate Frank Field (or me, for that matter) and John McDonnell and Dennis Skinner is a very broad church indeed. The same goes for the Tory party. Because FPTP forces parties to broaden their appeal, to be open to a far wider range of opinion than would be the case under PR. And our democracy is the better for it.

Under STV, parties fracture because they know they can probably be elected under more narrow party banners. And it would be a Godsend to the extremist parties. Yes, I know that the pre-packaged, off-the-shelf argument in this regard is that it’s undemocratic to use an electoral system to stop any party being elected if they would otherwise be elected under a proportional system. Argument is the best defence against exremism, apparently. Well, I make no apology for supporting a system that makes it well nigh impossible for Nick Griffen to become an MP. Our nation is better off for his absence from the Commons, and is worse off for his presence in the European Parliament.

And then there’s the practical objection to PR for general elections: at a time when we’re all wringing our hands in despair at falling turn out, why make voting more complicated. And don’t bother responding by accusing me or patronising the electorate. Whenever we’ve changed the electoral system away from FPTP in Scotland, turnout at the subsequent election has fallen. In Scotland we already have four different electoral systems: proprtional list for Europe, FPTP for general elections, Additional Member System (AMS) for Holyrood and STV for local authorities. What a mess! Changing general elections to STV would actually mean us having five systems, since we would, presumably, retain FPTP for the constituency side of Holyrood elections.

But of course there are party advantages obscuring this debate, and I’m not going to pretend that the big parties’ historic support for FPTP is entirely altruistic. Parties tend to support whichever system is most beneficial to them, and the LibDems are no different in this respect. When the SDP was formed, former Labour MPs with absolutely no track record of interest in electoral reform suddenly found themselves advocating PR in every TV interview they gave. That’s politics for you. But don’t try to tell me that the LibDems’ motives are based purely on principle and not at all on electoral advantage for them.

If we want a serious debate on electoral systems, I’m up for that. But let’s not skew that debate by lying to the public and claiming that FPTP deserves no consideration. Because that isn’t debate: that’s a sermon.