The problem of a headline "Labour to oppose vote reform bill" (28 July) is that it risks implying that Labour is ditching its manifesto support for a referendum on the electoral system, and that this is all that the coalition's parliamentary voting system and constituencies bill is about.
Yet Labour's amendment reaffirms its support for an AV referendum, while opposing the flawed proposals to rush through new boundaries by ditching the current non-partisan system.
A bill combining these different issues makes no sense, except as a backroom deal between the two governing parties.
The deal makes sense for those who want the boundaries to go through and the referendum to fail, but it is an elephant trap for the Lib Dems who want to win the referendum. The effect is to destabilise pro-electoral reform Labour forces, when there is no chance of winning a yes vote without mobilising Labour voters.
If Nick Clegg were to propose two separate bills, parliament could consider the merits of the separate issues. Labour would have to support a referendum bill, and the coalition could whip through its re-districting plans.
Sunder Katwala
General secretary, Fabian Society
Will Straw
Editor, Left Foot Forward
• I suppose the cynical evisceration of the independence of the Electoral Commission is to be expected from the coalition, and is thus not worth commenting upon in your leader (29 July), but to have no comment upon the new size of parliament is unworthy of your leader writer. The number 600 has apparently been plucked at random as a suitable number. Where is the justification for the change? Is there too little work for an MP with 70,000 constituents? Fewer MPs means fewer parliamentarians scrutinising both the executive and legislation. Perhaps a brave MP would actually like to write a proper job description for their position, which could then be used as a basis for calculating the number of MPs the country requires, and also serve as the marker for their electorate to judge them against.
Tony Winters
Kinver, Staffordshire
• In The Vote, Paul Foot tells us of the battle the Chartists had to fight to secure equal constituencies in the UK. At that point in history, it was the Tories who benefited from the "rotten boroughs" which Peter Hain seems so eager to remind us about (Report, 29 July). So why are Hain, Jack Straw and others opposing equality and forming an unholy alliance with David Davis et al? How can the Labour leadership, and leadership contenders, stand against equal sizes of constituencies regardless of where you live? Since when was Labour against equality? I understand all the arguments about registration – this needs to be tackled, and boundaries need to be constantly under review, but when constituencies vary in size by tens of thousands something must be very, very wrong. I am a Liberal Democrat. Centre-left. Supportive of the coalition, less so of the budget. But most importantly, I am pro-reform, and Labour party members who are pro-reform need to consider their own position.
Henry Vann
Bedford
• The latest unedifying manoeuvres over the voting reform bill show why the political parties should have no say in framing the rules by which we elect them: their conflicts of interest are unmanageable. These conflicts have already denied us the right to vote on PR, which is the key issue. Now the coalition parties, which openly proclaim their respective beliefs in FPTP and STV, are trying to hold a referendum on AV, while the Labour party, which alone advocated AV in its manifesto, is opposing this.
Whether this is a cynical ploy by Labour to help rightwing Tories undermine the coalition, or the coalition is to blame for linking the referendum with controversial boundary revisions, is beside the point: the people, not the political class, should be deciding all of this.
The only acceptable process for electoral reform is a popular convention – a citizens' assembly chosen by lot from all willing members of the public. The creation of the convention and its recommendations should be put to a referendum.
Charles Scanlan
London
