So no fallacious nonsense – no talk of extremists (FPTP can nurture them); no loss of constituency link (PR can increase both accountability and representation); no 'it's too hard to understand' (if you can't work out how to count to three, you shouldn't be allowed to vote); no 'the Lib Dems will hold the country to ransom' (one or two policy deals maybe, but that would only be reflecting public opinion); no Harmanesque crowing 'Labour won, so shut up and stop whining' (did we really want a government that can whip ID cards through so easily?); no talk of other countries, especially Israel (political culture is as important as the particular system used, so it's all far too conjectural); and definitely, absolutely, no party agendas.

With the Ashes approaching, it seems at least vaguely appropriate to open with a cricketing analogy. A year or two ago, England's Captain Boldness, Michael Vaughan was injured and had to leave the field, thus handing the decision-making powers to Marcus Trescothick. Trescothick adopted a strange kind of 'consensus captaincy', trying to juggle the ideas of the whole team in how best to set the field, when to make bowling changes etc. It didn't work; it was like watching a group of people who intend to go to the cinema faffing about because no one wants to be the first person to leave to go somewhere else, who then consequently all miss the start of the film. 'Consensus captaincy' didn't inspire any confidence and everybody was noticeably lifted when Vaughan returned from treatment.

Politics needs good leadership. It's an imperfect business, and therefore there's a thousand ways to go about running it. But in practical terms, one way is better than a thousand ways. People squabble enough over the particulars of PR systems; multiply that stubborn bitterness a hundred-fold and you get somewhere near the size of the problem.

The best way of solving this is to force people to work together, not in a watered-down manner, but in a sensible, effectiveness driven manner. British political culture is broadly bipolar. FPTP entrenches this bipolarity and forces fringe groups to work with the moderates, rather than forcing the moderates to work with the fringes, which is what proportional representation encourages. It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

This isn't quite as simple as the old line that under FPTP coalitions are formed pre-election and under PR they are formed after, thus taking power from the people and giving it to the politicians, and their shading back-alley dealings. This takes it too far. It would be fairer to say that FPTP affords the minor parties the power they deserve – if UKIP, for example, come up with a popular policy, the Conservatives would benefit from incorporating it into their manifesto, but without any further strings attached. A very similar thing would likely happen under PR, only it would be the UKIP man tabling the policy, rather than the Tory. In the end, not a great deal of difference, and one of PR's most cherished statements about giving more representation to everyone's views is effectively made null and void. Also, by bringing in the policies, rather than the parties, you are acting more directly to the will of the people. Fringe parties under FPTP aren't useless, they're just more like important think-tanks with a link to the people than parties actually vying to form part of the government.

This 'checking' mechanism of, primarily, the Lib Dems, has clearly not been working so well of late. This, however, is due to a shifting, or even eroding of ideological boundaries in the post-Socialism Blairite era. PR might make the situation appear clearer, if, for example, it demanded a re-appraisal of where each party, or each party faction, stood, but it wouldn't automatically offer a fuller voter choice, or more fully represent the 'will of the nation'.

Under such a bipolarity, the issue of the Lib Dems warrants some discussion. For many voters, the Lib Dems act as the simplest 'check' to the consensus – they are the 'sod you' vote, and whereas there might be real tangible support for some of their ideas, or at least the desire to see some of them taken further, fewer people actually want them to be in charge than the Orange hierarchy would have you believe.

In this way, they show how well people have learnt to play the game, to get, by whatever means, more or less what they want in parliament. Admittedly, and in wake of the stupidity of the religious hatred bill and those silly ID card things, the voters didn't play the game that well, but they got close, and there's little reason to suggest PR would have made up the shortfall.

Don't underestimate the shrewdness of the major players: if the Lib Dems show significant support exists for a particular issue, that a potential vote-goldmine exists, they will do what they can to plunder it. In the last election, the only issue they were really rewarded for in terms of votes was the war. One wonders, given the passionate nature of the situation, whether this represented the limit of their potential support, support garnered from old Labour voters who felt angry at Blair for going to war, and unsure of where else to turn.

The post-Blair shift in Britain's political infrastructure has done more than alienate the old left; it has shown the benefits of policy continuity, which FPTP does a lot to aid. In the real world, i.e. not the one inhabited by outsider idealists, political decisions are tough, and often the right decision is not a popular one. If it needs an exaggeratedly strong government to take these decisions, and stick around long enough to make sure they become part of the system, then so be it. It's not often politicians get to look at the long-term, therefore these chances should be cherished.

Politics is all too often choked by short-termism, this happens to all governments, in all systems – elections are such a bitch. If, by either entrenching a government, or forcing them to squabble over the same ground, you get at least a modicum of long-term thinking as a result, you really can't complain too vociferously. Take Britain's labour market, for example. What is now the envy of Europe was built on unpopular policies that recognised that such far-reaching economic change takes time, and would inevitably bring about unwelcome short-term changes, such as temporarily high unemployment. The government may have changed in the middle, but not before the upside of the unpopular policies had started to become noticeable.

A possible alternative under a post-election coalition is that we end up with an EU-constitution-like situation, which although it doesn't offend anyone, doesn't please anyone either, as major policies are watered down to virtual ineffectiveness. Furthermore, if all decisions are reached consensually, which party do you blame when things inevitably go wrong? It's no easier to kick a bad government out under FPTP, but it is easier to see which party is responsible for the mess.

Abandon all hope ye who enter here

"In politics there is no honour." – Benjamin Disraeli

Power is a very intoxicating drug. It's addictive and inexorably tied to politics. Ultimately, winning is everything, and anyone who disagrees is in denial or in the wrong game. There is no cure, and the most hardcore victims are more dangerous than any dope fiend. None of this is necessarily bad, but it's importance demands respect.

However, this is an importance that is overlooked by supporters of electoral reform, who should all really have something better to do than chase after holy grails.

For the voting system to change, you need to win over the parties, especially the one in power. Give up on the Tories. They have nothing to gain from proportional representation. The whole system may be unbelievably 'more equal' to Labour than it is to them, but in 2005 they gained more or less the number of seats that their share of the vote merited, and why sacrifice the chance to have disproportionate power in the future for nothing?

Labour will only push a change if they can be convinced that they would otherwise be shut out for half a century. Tony has already shown, with his comments as transcribed above and his appointment of Tubby Prescott to chair the Cabinet Sub-committee on Electoral Policy, that he's not going to do anything about it.

Even the Lib Dems, as Paddy Ashdown said, could be ripped apart by PR, but the potential prize obviously outweighs these concerns. Besides, who cares? For the foreseeable future, we're going to be ruled by either a Labour or a Tory government; scenarios like the current one just encourage them to try a bit harder to engage the populace – ultimately they do need some votes. But politicians aren't all Borises. A scarily large group of them are complete social lepers, who if they had all come from the same village would raise suspicions of a nuclear accident. It's politics: it's difficult, under whatever system.

That our political world is fraught with problems is a no-brainer. That it always will be is also something that we simply have to accept. Sure we can all dream of Utopia, so long as we realise that these are just dreams. PR does have its advantages, and a not too-far-flung potential to solve some of the problems we now face. But it is naïve to suggest it will cure them all or not create new problems.

Even an idiot like Geoff Hoon can see the need to re-engage an increasingly disillusioned electorate. This can be achieved in a number of genuinely realisable ways, like discussing important policies in a grown-up manner on prime-time television, rather than leaving the Sun, the Mirror and the Mail to chew them up, distort them and spit them back in a cursory and deformed state. If you want grown-up politics, you need a grown-up electorate, an educated electorate. There's no reason to suggest that more fairly representing an ill-informed electorate is a great leap forward in this direction.

I will of course return in a day or two to tell myself that I'm wrong...