But we are still a long way from gaining a majority for proportionality in the Labour party and have little support among the Tories.

At the same time, Lords reform has gathered momentum across the parties. This has opened up the intriguing possibility of a different but equally radical constitutional change: AV for the Commons and an elected House of Lords, almost certainly on a proportional electoral system.

As Labour’s electoral reformers increasingly swung behind this vision as the best practical attainable change in the foreseeable future, other parts of Labour recognised that the gross distortions of first past the post were no longer tenable. The gap between votes cast and seats won is becoming larger and more unsustainable, while many people feel their votes have little consequence or that they have to vote tactically to make any difference at all. It is also the case that the strategic need to focus solely on a small number of centrist swing voters in marginal seats has, itself, a corrupting and narrowing impact on Labour’s ambitions, message and appeal.

AV does not solve all these problems; no system is perfect. But it does at least mean that every MP will receive the support – on first or second preferences – of at least half the voters in their constituency.

It will give us reason to campaign in every part of the country. For a Labour party that gained less than a fifth of votes across the whole of southern and eastern England (gaining just 10 of over 200 seats) and which lost much of its core vote, the changes that come with AV have real advantages. AV will not always help Labour electorally: sometimes it will favour us, sometimes it won’t. But we are a democratic party which believes enhanced democracy will favour progressive politics. So we support a more democratic system not as a tactical position but as a progressive principle.

Labour’s commitment to an AV referendum, and a manifesto which implied at least a bias in favour of AV, broke the logjam in the British political system. In the wake of an indecisive election, the AV referendum became part of the coalition programme largely because it had been in Labour’s manifesto.

So far, so good. We should now be working flat out for a ‘yes’ vote. But we will have to negotiate some unexpected obstacles.

The formation of the coalition, and their planned deep spending cuts, have undoubtedly created real tensions between the Labour and Liberal Democrat reformers who will need to work together in any referendum ‘yes’ campaign. Simplistic assumptions about the two parties being automatic, progressive allies have been challenged.

The decision to hold the referendum next May means that the same people who might campaign for a yes vote will be fighting local and national elections against each other across Wales, Scotland and much of England.

Most difficult has been the decision to lump the AV referendum legislation together with totally unrelated legislation to ‘reduce and equalise’ the number of Westminster constituencies. Apparently this was the price of gaining Tory support for the referendum proposal, but has done nothing to ease relations with Liberal Democrat reformers. The boundary changes will have to be fought in other ways, but the AV referendum must be won.

In truth, the whole Labour party is unlikely to back AV. The divisions on the issue are too great. But our new leader should personally and positively campaign for change. If the referendum is lost, electoral reform will be dead for a generation.

Securing democratic change, rather than any passing discomfort for the Liberal Democrats, should be Labour’s real aim. In truth, as so often before, the Liberal Democrats have proved pretty hopeless on this issue. Many suspect that their leadership’s desire for a long-term electoral pact with the Tories is currently more important to them than electoral reform.

So Labour shouldn’t worry about the Liberal Democrats. We should back change because it is the right, progressive and democratic thing to do.

Photo: Keith Bacongco