There are soundbites from a number of key figures, but the best one comes from Sir Menzies Campbell:

The electoral system must now reflect the sophistication of the voters. Objective consideration of the principle and practice of PR would be an enormous contribution to a debate which is simply not going to go away.

Hear that Jack, we’re not going to go away. Except I am, for a bit, but more on that later.

Making my job easier: The Independent’s Campaign for Democracy links guide.

One of those links is for David’s latest article, which will go up in full in a minute.

Another leads you to Frank Field MP, who argues that Billy’s idea of reforming the Lords first because it is on the agenda is just unnecessary fiddling and shirking of a more important issue. I’m torn on this one – Billy made a very good argument for using the Lords as a springboard for further change at the meeting, and reinforced it to me on the train-ride home, but you can see what Frank is saying.

Constitutional reform must be on this Parliament's agenda. Fiddling around yet again with the House of Lords is a diversionary activity. The key issue is to reform the way in which Members of the House of Commons are elected.

The various letters pages are once again full of talk of reform, much like just about every political phone-in at the moment, so I’m told.

The Independent has another bag-full of responses to our/their campaign, Nicola from upstairs gets a letter in the FT and Jack gets berated from all sides from the sensible readers of the Guardian, who universally failed to fall for his fallacies.

Not only did Polly Toynbee fail to fall for them, she went and corrected him, in her own inimitable way. Take that Jack.

Also in the Guardian, Robin Cook offers as much wisdom as he can while trying not to rock the parliamentary boat too much.

And in the awful event that the Tories succeed in obtaining a comfortable majority on a 36% share of the poll, I doubt whether any of our front bench will pen articles praising the wisdom of a constitutional arrangement that enables a party with such a minority vote in the nation to provide a strong government. On the contrary, we will be livid with the electoral system that made it possible and furious with ourselves for allowing it to happen.

We told the electorate this time that they must choose between us and Michael Howard, and 8 million of them ignored us on polling day and voted for third parties. Three-party politics is here to stay.

Samuel 'Perhaps even smarter than Anatole Kaletsky' Brittan asks: "Is this a scandal?" in the FT. It’s subscription only and you can’t even Google-News your way around it, but it’s definitely worth a read, even if it means standing around in a newsagents for five minutes being a cheapskate.

For what it is worth, I believe that first-past-the-post in Britain has outlived its usefulness. It is tolerable in the US because of the checks and balances of a separately elected Congress, a Supreme Court and powerful individual states. Ultimately what matters is not counting heads but a society where people are free to lead their own lives without fear of either the government or what their neighbour will say. This was labelled by Karl Popper as the Open Society - none the worse for being difficult to define precisely.

By the way, buy his book.