It would make perfect sense for Bristol City Council to be elected as an entire body once every four years.

It is a point we have made before.

And it is a pity the Labour party did not put such a proposal forward when they were in office.

But of course that is the problem with any electoral change. Parties only seek to change a system when they stop benefiting from it.

And until recently, Labour did very well through the current system. That said, there is a very good case for looking at Labour's suggestion.

It is ridiculous for a third of the council to be elected every year for three years and then for no elections to be held for the fourth year. It means that people never get the chance to vote for the entire council.

There is never a point when the council completes a term. Different councillors are always at different stages of their time in office.

And of the neighbouring local councils, Bristol stands alone in operating this way.

There is little continuity. A party may hold office for a year or even four but equally could face being ousted by a shift in the polls after just 12 months. That makes policy planning difficult because whatever party is in power, it inevitably looks towards the next set of elections.

How much better and more stable it would be if the council was elected as a whole every four years.

Parties could operate with conviction, with certainty and with confidence that they had enough time to implement their ideas and see them take effect.

What we have at present is piecemeal change that is unsettling and unnecessary. Surely no one, regardless of their party, can defend the system as it stands.