Don’t back a vote system that will let in the BNP

This is the great strength of the electoral system we have now: it's called first past the post and it means you can kick 'em out if you want to. That's why we need a general ­election as soon as possible.

This is real accountability, real ­democracy, real people power. So it is incredible that at a time when our entire political system is suffering a crisis of trust — when what we need more than anything is a radical redistribution of power from political elites to the man and woman on the street — members of the Cabinet are proposing to get rid of this system for one that is less accountable, less democratic and less open.

Proportional representation may sound like a fair and effective system but it's anything but. Let me explain. First it removes the link between one MP and one constituency. PR comes in many forms but more often than not you find yourself voting for a party rather than just one person.

Under our current ­system, when you put your pencil to the ballot paper you're putting your cross against someone's name — one person to represent your interests, to go to if you have a problem: one person whom you feel a direct link to. A move to faceless politics would sever this local link and damage voter engagement.

This Thursday in the European ­elections you won't be voting for an individual but for a political party in a massive sprawling regional constituency. PR has destroyed the link between voters and their MEP. The only people who have gained from this are the political parties who call the shots on drawing up the party lists.

The second problem with PR is that it gives smaller parties an unfair and disproportionate boost. This may sound good but what you'll find is that more often than not, PR turns politics into a beauty contest between various fringe parties — either peddling niche ­concerns or ugly extremist views.

This Thursday Britain votes in the European elections. If just eight per cent of the electorate votes for the BNP then as a result of the PR system that Labour forced on us, that party is guaranteed a seat in the European Parliament. Imagine the same thing happening in national government. Not only would the BNP get in — they would also wield influence out of all proportion to their numbers, for the simple fact that in coalition governments, it's the smaller parties that are the power brokers.

That feeds in to the third weakness of PR — so much of the evidence from abroad shows that it leads to weak, unstable governments. Between 1947 and 1993 Italy's parliament was voted in through a system of proportional representation. During that time the average government lasted just nine months. Why? Because when you force together a number of different parties, each with different outlooks, philosophies, priorities, you're bound to get indecision and division over decisive action and unity.

At a time when we're facing the greatest economic crisis in living memory, it's not in-fighting or compromise we need — it's clear leadership.
The fourth major problem with PR is that the coalition governments it ­inevitably creates inevitably descend into backroom deals that betray the will of the people. Instead of voters ­choosing their government on the basis of the manifestos put before them in an election, party managers put together a government that suits them after rounds of horse-trading and bargaining for power.

I'd like to hear Alan Johnson and other champions of PR explain how that would deliver the transparency and trust our political system so ­desperately needs.

For all these reasons, PR is a step backwards. We need to move forwards, and it's clear the direction we should take. If we want an electoral system that is fairer, we need to ensure that each constituency has equal worth. At present some constituencies have twice as many voters as others, putting a premium on some votes. We can even this out by cutting the number of MPs and redrawing boundaries.

But as well as cutting the size of Parliament, we've got to reform it, too. Right now legislation that affects the lives of millions can sail through without proper debate. We need to make Parliament a real engine of accountability. That means reducing the power of the whips, ending the culture of sofa ­government, and making select committees more independent so they properly scrutinise our future laws.

But much more important than electoral reform or Parliamentary reform is reform of power itself — where it lies in our country. It's held in the wrong places by the wrong people, often making decisions at the wrong time. The EU, judges, advisers on the sofa of No10. Anyone apart from you.

Last week I set out our vision for a huge redistribution of power in this country. We're going to give parents the power to set up their own schools for their children. We're going to give neighbourhoods the power to come together and build the homes they need. We're going to give social enterprises the power to go into our communities and deal with some of our most entrenched social problems.

We're going to give councils the power to act as they see fit for their constituents rather than endlessly answering to Whitehall. We're going to completely reshape the landscape of power in this country. It's this power shift we need to restore hope and trust in our politics — not the unfair, undemocratic, ineffective mistake that is proportional representation.