Government plans for a referendum in May on changing the voting system could be at risk if peers vote later to refer them to legislative experts.

Peers, led by ex-Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, claim the bill covering the move has not been properly drawn up.

The bill also paves the way for a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and the re-drawing of boundaries to create similar-sized constituencies.

Labour says the reforms are designed to rig the electoral system against it.

Electoral reform was a key demand of the Liberal Democrats before they agreed to join the coalition with the Conservatives.

'Detrimental'
Ministers are determined to push their plans through Parliament quickly, with a referendum on the alternative vote system pencilled in for 5 May and planned boundary changes due to be completed by 2013.

...

Analysis

Norman Smith
Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4

Rarely can a key government bill have been so little loved.

In the Commons, Tory MPs voted for it reluctantly and only because they'd been ordered to by David Cameron for the good of the coalition.

Labour is hopelessly split over the idea of an AV referendum - but view the redrawing of constituency boundaries as a shameless attempt to rig the electoral system because they would lose up to thirty seats.

And even the Lib Dems are not hugely enthusiastic - as they view AV as a second-best option to a fully proportional electoral system.

Pretty much all MPs are a bit queasy about the idea their numbers should be culled by 50, fearing that they could be among those destined for the chop.

Such a lack of goodwill towards the bill in the Commons, may only encourage peers to put the brakes on the bill.

...

Both dates could now be in jeopardy because of claims the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is technically flawed and is "hybrid legislation", meaning it makes reference to local issues as well as dealing with the UK-wide system.

Lord Falconer and his colleagues cite references in the bill to keeping the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland as single constituencies, while other distinct parts of the UK - such as the Isle of Wight - are not mentioned.

They say hybrid bills should be referred to a House of Lords committee so interested parties can lodge appeals.

Labour is expected to table a motion later to refer the bill to parliamentary officials known as "the Examiners". If they rule it is a hybrid bill it will be referred to a Lords select committee which could hear petitions against the proposed law change.

Such a move would severely delay the legislation - by months - and throw the coalition's plans for electoral reform into turmoil, BBC political correspondent Norman Smith says.

Ministers are already facing a daunting timetable since they have only until 24 February to get the referendum legislation on the statute book in order to comply with an Electoral Commission ruling.

If the Labour motion goes through, the government may be forced to split the legislation into two bills in order to save the referendum.

...

WHAT IS ALTERNATIVE VOTE?

Instead of marking the ballot paper with an X for one candidate, the voter can rank all the candidates in order of preference.

If a candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes then they are elected.

If no candidate gains a majority of first preferences, then the second-preference votes of the candidate who finished last on the first count are redistributed.This process is repeated until someone gets over 50%.

Representatives are still elected for single-member constituencies.

...

Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Reducing the number of MPs by 50, on no real basis, will have a detrimental effect on our politics...

"We would have a weaker House of Commons, rather than a stronger one. We need a stronger House of Commons to hold the government to account."

He added: "I'm not trying to scupper the bill at all. There's nothing to stop the coalition, if it wants the reform [of the size of the Commons], to take it into a separate bill."

But Lib Dem Justice Minister Lord McNally said: "If the House of Lords falls for his elephant trap, then their lordships are not as smart as I think they are."

He added: "We have been through a process of devolution in this country without reducing the overall number of MPs... We want to make the case for fair votes in fair-sized constituencies."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11754656

Didn't know all that, half expecting it to be fudged now...

This gerrymandering on a national scale along with the caps on housing benefit driving poor people from the south of england. I do not trust the motives of the coalition on this.

Whos gerrymandering? As any changes to MP constituencies goe through the Boundary comission that is run by the speaker of the house of commens.

The voting system no longer matters as I feel that there is no one to vote for any more.

This. I did vote at the last election but was sorely tempted to spoil my ballot.

I really don't like the idea of PR to elect a primary chamber. As a system for producing a second chamber, then yes, I think it should be used (I think I've said before that something like PR elections every 3-5 years for a third of the makeup of the second chamber seem far more rational than how the current second house is made up).

I have no problems with hereditaries in the House of Lords, a damn sight more independent that the life peers that they appoint. I would have a minimum voting record and a ban on non residents being allowed. That would keep out all the tax exiles.

I would prefer AV over first past the post. What is needed is moderate governments not strong governments pushing through bad legislation because they can. It was a single party (Tory) that passed the laws that set the global financial crisis in motion.

My grandma used to. She said she would write “socialism” on hers. Dunno if she still does, but it’s a tempting thing to do now.

It was a single party (Labour) that did sweet FA about it for 11 years. Not bad blaming a party that was last in power when there was ample time for the then incumbent party to have done something about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11754656

Looks like they lost so it will go for normal debates

I am not letting Labour off the hook. They could have reversed those changes and had tougher regulation. The regulation that they used was pathetic. The fact that Northern Rock only had three regulators was also appalling. Though I cannot see the Tories doing anything differently during that period. They would have been under the same pressure by the banks to loosen regulation.