The Tories’ priority is to secure the boundary changes in time for the next general election because they see partisan advantage for themselves in the new boundaries. The Lib Dems are providing a reformist fig-leaf for a Tory bill.

The bill tears up longstanding conventions about the processes for redrawing parliamentary boundaries. The principle of equal-sized electoral districts is, of course, nothing new, nor is it controversial. It was one of the Chartists’ demands and it has long informed the work of the Boundary Commission. What is new is this bill’s proposal to reduce the time and scope for members of the public (including political parties) to have a say about proposed new boundaries. I can see no argument for this, other than party political self-interest from the Tories (they are determined to achieve these boundary changes in time for the next general election).

Worse, though, is that this is being rushed through parliament at a time of widespread concern about the completeness and accuracy of electoral registers. In March, the Electoral Commission published a study of eight local authorities which found very high levels of under-registration in key groups: 56 per cent of 17-24 year olds; 49 per cent of private sector tenants; and 31 per cent of black and minority ethnic residents.

It is estimated that around 3.5 million people entitled to be on the voting register are not registered and that this problem has been getting steadily worse over the past four decades. Chris Ruane MP has done some brilliant work on this and has been successful in bucking the trend in his own constituency.

The bill proposes to base the new boundaries on the December 2010 register. It cannot be acceptable for the government to go ahead with such a far-reaching change without addressing the crisis of low registration. They could do this by basing the boundary review on the numbers of eligible voters rather than on the numbers registered. The Tories and Lib Dems respond to this by saying that Labour could have made such a change ourselves during the past 13 years. Well, yes we should have done but we didn’t propose a bill to abolish 50 constituencies while severely limiting local public consultation. The onus is on the government to demonstrate that this bill is not simply an act of over-hasty gerrymandering.

Labour was the only party to commit to a referendum on AV in our 2010 manifesto. Some have criticised the shadow cabinet’s decision to oppose this bill but I think any other course of action would be for us to walk into a Tory trap. If the government was to separate the two elements of the bill, Labour could happily support the AV referendum while vigorously opposing the gerrymandering of constituencies.

The Lib Dems have walked straight into the Tory trap. The Lib Dems’ priority is voting reform which (correctly) is subject to a referendum. Just to secure the referendum they have to vote for the gerrymandering of the boundaries (the Tories’ priority). Yet, if the bill passes in its current form, the Tories can campaign for a ‘no’ vote safe in the knowledge that their boundary changes will happen whatever the outcome of the referendum.

Worse still, even if the British people vote ‘yes’ to AV (as I hope they will) this bill does not guarantee that the referendum result will be implemented. It will only happen if and when the boundary reviews are completed. Were the government to fall in 2012 or 2013 prior to the completion of the boundary reviews, but after a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum, a general election would be held under the first past the post system. How on Earth did the Liberal Democrats agree to this? Its purpose is to keep the Lib Dems tied to the Tories for the full five years regardless of public opinion.

Labour must remain a party of democratic reform. Where the government proposes sensible reforms we should support them. This bill is no such reform. Labour MPs will oppose the bill. We will argue to separate electoral reform from the boundary changes. Above all, we will push for a massive effort to improve the electoral register.

We have just three months to do all we can to secure the most accurate and comprehensive electoral register possible. Chris Ruane’s example shows what can be done. This is not an easy time to ask local councils for more resources for electoral registration but this is exactly what we need. Every additional voter added to the register serves to undermine and weaken this petty piece of Tory partisanship.