AV referendum Second Reading impending

The first measure of opposition to the AV referendum comes next Monday, September 6th.  The main Conservative MP rebellion is expected to come later, on the issue of timing.  Even wrecking amendments, such as adding an additional question offering an STV option to the ballot paper (though that would be a high-stakes game), are more likely to come later.

But even the first vote will have interest.  Will any Labour MPs feel honour-bound to vote in favour of the bill, having stood at the Election promising an AV referendum?  Will the Unionists and Nationalists all vote against, as expected?  Could this be a moment at which some (perhaps tired and emotional) Lib Dem MPs decide to openly vote against the Coalition?

Perhaps most crucially, are there any Conservative opponents of the Bill for whom it is a simple conscience matter on which they will not accept a whip?  I consider it such.  Trading bad constitutional changes for partisan advantage is the very worst kind of politics.  Mark Pritchard argues that alternatives to the Coalition such as a minority government were deeply unattractive for both partisan and economic reasons.  I disagree, but I would certainly have felt it more acceptable to offer a Coalition deal that did not involve bad constitutional changes.  If the Coalition had involved us not doing welfare reform or schools reforms or controlling immigration better, or had raised the higher rate of income tax instead of cutting spending so much, or had placed Vince Cable in charge of banking regulation - if the Coalition had been about these things, I would have said: I disagree that this is necessary, but I can see the advantages of compromises of this sort for power.  If the Coalition had added to the above that there would be no renegotiation of our position within the EU, I would have said: I disagree strongly, and consider this should be an unacceptable compromise for any Eurosceptic Conservative, having spent so many years campaigning for renegotiation, but at least the Coalition deal would merely fail to make good changes, rather than positively make bad changes.

AV is a bad measure, a measure that virtually no-one on the Conservative side believes in and few people on the Lib Dem side consider a stable quasi-final solution.  Remember the derision with which we all greeted Gordon Brown's suggestion that, in the face of his perhaps losing, he would change the voting system?  How are we any different?

Trading bad constitutional changes for partisan advantage is a classic form of political corruption, and it sucks you in.  You start by thinking it's okay to change the voting system for your partisan advantage, then you abolish the upper chamber for your partisan advantage, then you move on to extend the length of the Parliament for your partisan advantage, then you select politically sympathetic judges, then all civil servants have to be members of The Party.  You think I've got carried away with that list?  At what point?  At what point does it stop being okay to distort the constitution to keep yourself in power?  Will you know that point?  And when you get there, are you confident that you will "do the right thing" and refuse to make the bad constitutional change this time when you were willing to make the bad constitutional change all the others?

Don't be seduced by the fact that there is a referendum here, rather than a measure.  Quite apart from the fact that a referendum is itself a bad constitutional device, by voting for that referendum you are facilitating the passage of a bad constitutional measure.  If the referendum passes, you will have participated in a bad constitutional change - it will be you that did it, not someone else.  And don't be dazzled by opinion polls saying that there might be a No vote.  Many things can change between now and polling day.  If the final vote goes Yes it will be no use your complaining about the poor quality of the No campaign - responsibility for this bad constitutional measure will be yours, O Backbench MP, because you could have stopped it, and you didn't.