The introduction into British politics of the live televised debates between the would-be Prime Ministers marks an historic change to the way elections are conducted in the UK. They have certainly dominated media coverage of the election and have propelled Nick Clegg into the political spotlight. The Lib Dem leader's performance in the first debate smashed the prevailing opinion that there could only be two possible winners in the election. Ironically, Clegg's performance (almost universally being hearlded as 'the winner') may actually make it less likely that we have these sort of debates again in the future!

If the election results in a hung (or ‘balanced') parliament, with the Lib Dems holding the balance of power, there is a strong likelihood that electoral reform will be a non-negotiable issue for agreeing a coalition government. Historically electoral reform has been the centrepiece of Liberal Party policy, and despite some posturing by the party hierarchy over the possibility of working with either Labour or the Tories, it remains a likely requirement for any parliamentary alliance. [Given that a move to a more proportional voting system would significantly boost the Lib Dem's representation in Westminster, it's hardly sensible for them to start changing their position now, does it?] With two of the three major parties now advocating political reform, the likelihood of the next general election (or at least the next-but-one) being fought under a new electoral system is greater than at any time for generations.

A move to Proportional Representation, or the ‘more proportional' but not strictly PR electoral system advocated by Labour, would have the effect of increasing the representation of smaller parties. We could expect to see MPs elected from the Greens and UKIP (and possibly the BNP too) as well as a significant increase in the number of Lib Dems in Parliament. And over the longer-term we may well see increasing political fragmentation, with new parties emerging and an erosion of traditional Labour and Conservative power.

This increase in the number of political parties and the shift from a two party (or even a three party?) system, would pose some significant barriers to any plans to hold leaders' debates in the future. After all, it's been difficult enough to agree on a format for the leaders of three parties to debate. How much harder would it be if there were a significant number of MPs from other parties? And one wonders whether it would even be appropriate to have a 'leaders debate' anyway with some many more variables and permutations. Would we have a debate with six party leaders in the future? Or perhpaps, we would have one debate for would be Prime Ministers, and another for would be 'kingmakers' with the smaller (but no less important) parties? And what would happen if we got more extremist and anti-democractic parties being elected? Some argue that it is right to 'starve the BNP of the oxygen of the media' and would no doubt refuse to enter into debate. And if they did, would the debate be dominated by an anti-racist alliance against the BNP?

It's hard to see how the leaders debate could easily work with a more diverse party system.

Of course, a new format could probably be found that's better suited to a multi-party democracy. But there is still an irony that success should result in extinction. In twenty years time, we may look back at the debates as the turning point in the way our politics is conducted and come to regard the three live debates as something of a unique political oddity.