The Liberal Democrat membership will shortly make the most important decision in the party’s history and perhaps influence the coming century in much the same way as the Liberal Government did exactly one hundred years ago. Whilst the electoral system is unlikely to deliver a Liberal Democrat majority government it may produce a balanced Parliament at the next election. If so, Liberal Democrats may have an influential position, the use of which could change the course of history both here and on the international stage.

The election of Charles Kennedy’s successor could be more important than that of the Conservative Leader David Cameron or indeed Tony Blair’s heir. But will the members realise the responsibility placed upon them, and will the media recognise the magnitude of the task?

It is therefore essential for candidates to make clear their intentions if the possibility of a ‘hung’ parliament becomes a reality in 2009/10. It is not sufficient to continue a policy of ‘deciding on issues’ as they arise as that would run the risk of our own Party losing out and being excluded from even a share of power, and a return to two party politics. In any case this topic will once again occupy the media over the intervening years so why not address it now and let others respond placing the ball firmly in their court?

The difficulty in answering the question of what the Lib Dems should do in the event of a hung parliament is that by publicly engaging in such a debate while both Labour & Tories sit it out reinforces the perception that the Lib Dems are not a potential party of government. In a proper context, such a debate would be very useful. Indeed I would really like to know exactly where the candidates are on this, but I do accept that the debate cannot take place without all three main parties being involved. After all it is a scenario that all parties will face, why should only the Lib Dems be asked the question. A real debate, involving all three parties prior to an election would in fact be very interesting. It would throw up "red line" issues on all sides and when it came to a crunch we would see the price of principles. Interestingly if it really comes down to "deciding on issues" then a Labour/Tory alliance would be innevitable. Those two parties are closer to each other on policy than either are to the Lib Dems. The other parties would never agree to a debate on the issue because it legitimises Lib Dem claims of being a potential party of government, and so undermines their taunts of being a party of protest votes.

As far as I am concerned, whoever becomes leader should have one red line issue in the event of a hung parliament and that is electoral reform. In a country where the fight to win an election is dominated by the fight to win the middle ground, it is astonishing that the party that dominates the middle ground are excluded from governmental influence by an election system that empowers absolutely a government with just over a third of the cast vote. Fairness, equality, freedom require reform above all else. This is my main requirement of forming a coalition with anyone and whichever party proves easiest to negotiate with on this takes the lead as potential partners for me.