Steve Webb

It's sounding increasingly likely that there will be only two or maybe three candidates for the Lib Dem leadership election. The Guardian is reporting that despite having secured verbal support from enough MPs to allow him to stand, Steve Webb is likely later today to rule himself out. This leaves, at the last count, just Chris Huhne, Nick Clegg and probably John Hemming prepared to join battle.

Now, it's not because my loyalty to Chris is in question, but I do believe this is bad for party democracy and was a big part of the questioning of the leadership of Ming over the past 18 months. It is true that the far too short timetable mitigates against a broad based debate and one has to question why FedEx made such a peremptory decision - worries about an attempt at a "coronation" spring to mind.

We have consistently positioned ourselves as the party of plurality and our voting system creates ample opportunity for people to prioritise from a wide field and shift our choices in a a multitude of different ways, but this only works with a decently large field to choose from. Which is why I much favoured the 1999 leadership election to the 2006 one. And why, despite not giving Charles any preference on the ballot I had a greater feeling then that he was the choice of the party as a whole than I ever did with Ming.

C'mon, more than two/three of you must have something to say about the future of our party and policy and the confidence to say it?

If you whittle it down to two or three before the membership has a say, are we any better than the Tories? At least the Tories had ballots amongst the MPs so we could all see which way support was shifting - you're all likely to stitch up the ballot paper in complete secrecy. And in the process, you give the lie to the notion that we are about devolution and local choice, and instead will have shown that as Westminster insiders believe you are above everyone else.

I am sure, for example, that those who have called on Steve Webb to stand would have different opinions about who to vote for as second choice to Steve, yet effectively Steve makes that choice for them if he "throws in his lot with Nick Clegg" as the Guardian are suggesting.

So, MPs, if any of you feel you have something, anything, to say on policy areas or party direction and priorities that might not be said by just two or three runners with their own priorities, please throw your hat into the ring so those ideas can get an airing, can prompt those who might win to take them into account, and give us a leadership that has assimilated the opinions and preferences of the whole membership. We might like the "Two Horse Race" for town hall seats up and down the country, but it is not appropriate here!

And those who don't want to stand in any event, you are the ones that can make or break this since every candidate needs seven of you to support them; please consider nominating outsiders if they ask. The last thing we want in my opinion is a race dominated by two people with twenty odd MPs backing them and none left over for anyone else to stand. We had what, 46 MPs when Charles was elected, and six candidates whittled down to five. Now we have 63 MPs, I'm sure more than two of you would like to have a say.

We complain that two party democracy is bad for the nation. I contend that a two candidate leadership ballot is likely just as bad for the party.