MPs and peers end stand-off over AV referendum bill
The battle over a bill authorising a referendum on the Westminster voting system has ended, paving the way for the poll to take place on 5 May.
MPs and peers had been involved in a stand-off over a proposal which would have meant the referendum would only be binding if 40% of the public took part.
But the government eventually won a Lords vote scrapping the measure by 68 votes and the bill will now become law.
It had to be approved by Thursday for the referendum to happen in May.
The House of Commons and the House of Lords had been locked in a battle over whether the outcome of the referendum should only be binding if at least 40% of people vote.
Peers insisted on the proposal being added to legislation enabling the referendum to go ahead but MPs twice voted to reject the proposals.
The House of Lords eventually backed down shortly after 2300 GMT when a Labour amendment urging MPs to think again on the issue was defeated by 221 to 153 votes.
'Ping-pong'
Lords leader Lord Strathclyde had earlier urged a packed House to back down and "respect the will of the elected Chamber" over the issue.
The bill is due to get its Royal Assent within hours.
The elections watchdog had said the bill must get Royal Assent by 26 February to enable enough time for the referendum to be staged on 5 May.
But the situation was complicated by the fact the Commons will rise for a 10-day recess on Thursday.
The issue of the 40% clause was passed back and forward between the two Chambers in a effort to find a resolution to the dispute in a parliamentary process known as "ping-pong".
Earlier on Wednesday, peers voted to reinstate the 40% threshold clause by 277 to 215 - with Lord Tebbit, Lord Lamont, Lord Lawson, Lord Howe and Lord Mawhinney among Tory peers to rebel against the government.
'Betrayal'
This prompted accusations of "betrayal" by the former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown.
"We have delivered, in full, our side of the deal - the Conservatives seem unable to deliver theirs," he told the BBC.
Ministers argued voters should be the ones to decide the outcome of the poll but critics said it was right for Parliament to determine what should happen if turnout is below a certain level.
Labour peer Lord Rooker, who proposed the original amendment, said it set a dangerous precedent for future referendums.
Peers earlier agreed not to defy the government on another sticking point relating to the size of constituencies.
An amendment by crossbencher Lord Pannick calling for constituencies to be allowed to deviate from the standard size by 7.5% - as opposed to the 5% margin sought by ministers - was defeated by one vote.
The Conservatives agreed to a referendum over whether to replace the first-past-the-post system for electing MPs with the Alternative Vote as part of their coalition negotiations.
AV poll indicates crushing defeat for yes campaign
Guardian/ICM survey shows further slump in support for electoral change in major setback for Nick Clegg
Voters look set to deal a crushing blow to Nick Clegg by rejecting the alternative vote by a two to one majority, an end of campaign Guardian/ICM poll shows.
The survey predicts a 68% no vote against just 32% for yes and, in line with other recent polls, suggests support for electoral change has slumped further since a Guardian/ICM poll last month revealed the growing size of the no lead. The lead then was 16 points, compared with 36 now.
That suggests the campaign has been overwhelmingly lost by the Yes to AV alliance, which began the year with an apparent lead in the polls. In February, a Guardian/ICM poll put the yes camp ahead by two points.
The latest poll, carried out by telephone and including a representative sample of voters in Northern Ireland, finds opposition to AV has grown among most types of voters.
A majority of Labour supporters now say they will vote against AV despite Ed Miliband's endorsement of change. So will almost nine in 10 Conservatives and more than a quarter of definite Lib Dem voters, whose lukewarm support seems confirmed by the fact that they are now less likely than Conservative or Labour voters to say they will turn out.
Young voters remain in favour of AV, but are the least likely to be certain to vote.
Among all voters, before adjustment for likely turnout, 28% said they were for change, with 52% against and 20% who said they didn't know.
After adjustment, among voters who say they are likely to vote, 32% back yes, down from 42% in April. Meanwhile 68% say no â?? up from 58%.
The poll was carried out over Monday and Tuesday this week. The bank holiday made it more difficult to reach some voters, but figures for the state of the parties have been adjusted to take account of any imbalance in the sample.
In a hypothetical immediate general election, Labour has 37%, unchanged from April. The Conservatives are on 36%, up one. The Liberal Democrats are on 15%, unchanged, and others on a combined 11%, down two.
Well, today was the day of the referendum on AV here in Britain and I went to vote earlier. It does seem as though it won't pass given what I have been reading around the internet, but I suppose that we should appreciate the fact that we are entitled to a vote and a chance to elect our local officials and government when many people around the world get no say at all in the numerous dictatorships. AV or FPTP, Britain is still, by worldwide standards, a good democracy and I don't think the voters of this country truly recognise how fortunate they are.
AV referendum: Dividing the spoils of a bitter war
A debate that was often about the complexity of electoral systems ended in the simplest of results.
The No campaign won, overwhelmingly.
The rush to attribute blame, or grab the credit for that result, begins here.
Many Lib Dems will attribute the outcome to David Cameron who they say campaigned hard for a No vote despite agreeing not to take a leading role.
As early as February the prime minister had no qualms about reminding people Nick Clegg had once called the alternative vote a "miserable little compromise".
Relations between the coalition partners deteriorated from there, until Energy Secretary Chris Huhne confronted the prime minister in cabinet in what became a very well publicised spat.
Both Mr Huhne and the former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown accused the No campaign of personally targeting Nick Clegg and telling lies, something which was denied.
While some suspected the tension was carefully staged to boost Lib Dem election hopes, Mr Huhne insisted, as the results came in, relationships had grown frayed.
These moments of melodrama won the attention of journalists.
Unusual alliances
Gripping the wider public, would prove to be more difficult.
In the event much of debate was characterised by two things that tend to bore voters - bickering politicians and ferocious, sometimes obscure, battles between political campaigners.
Even committed Westminster watchers may soon struggle to recall the details of a row about a poster featuring a soldier's body armour, or the intricacies of the campaign donations.
There were moments of novelty when political opponents shared one stage.
Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable and Labour leader Ed Miliband appeared together at a press conference arguing for a Yes vote. David Cameron and the former Labour home secretary Lord Reid stood side by side to make the case for a no vote.
But even these unusual alliances were unlikely to win too much attention from those not naturally drawn to politics.
Turnout
All this was played out against a backdrop of huge news stories such as the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, the death of Osama bin Laden and the royal wedding.
Despite all this, millions of people voted and even in areas where no other elections were taking place, like London, the turnout was comparable to that seen at local elections.
Those who favoured the Yes campaign will argue they were defeated by the prime minister's campaigning power, a largely hostile press and a tough opposing campaign.
They will also wonder whether people who voted against the Lib Dems in the elections might have been keen to oppose Nick Clegg's favoured electoral system at the referendum.
Those who backed a No vote will say they won the argument for the merits of the status quo, and persuaded people the alternative vote was complex and unnecessary.
The voters, of course, needed only to mark crosses on ballot papers. They did not have to explain their reasoning.
So campaigners who devoted months of their lives to this argument will never know what difference, if any, they made to the result.
One other interesting thing that has come out of the elections this week is the massive gains the SNP have made over in Scotland. Apparently they are going to have a referendum at some point over the next few years regarding whether Scotland should become an independent nation or not. I never even so much as thought about this but now it looks like it could well happen and our country's borders may be getting redefined. It has been an interesting week - some have come out worse from it (Nick Clegg), and some have come out better.
Many Lib Dems will attribute the outcome to David Cameron who they say campaigned hard for a No vote despite agreeing not to take a leading role.
As early as February the prime minister had no qualms about reminding people Nick Clegg had once called the alternative vote a "miserable little compromise".
Relations between the coalition partners deteriorated from there, until Energy Secretary Chris Huhne confronted the prime minister in cabinet in what became a very well publicised spat.
Both Mr Huhne and the former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown accused the No campaign of personally targeting Nick Clegg and telling lies, something which was denied.
While some suspected the tension was carefully staged to boost Lib Dem election hopes, Mr Huhne insisted, as the results came in, relationships had grown frayed.
Nick Clegg has been a shady operator from the beginning. He isn't so much a person as a series of compromises and gimmicks. If he hasn't the balls to call for no-confidence vote after Cameron walked over him in this way, then his own party should get rid of him and replace him with someone who stands for something.
Many Lib Dems will attribute the outcome to David Cameron who they say campaigned hard for a No vote despite agreeing not to take a leading role.
As early as February the prime minister had no qualms about reminding people Nick Clegg had once called the alternative vote a "miserable little compromise".
Relations between the coalition partners deteriorated from there, until Energy Secretary Chris Huhne confronted the prime minister in cabinet in what became a very well publicised spat.
Both Mr Huhne and the former Lib Dem leader Lord Ashdown accused the No campaign of personally targeting Nick Clegg and telling lies, something which was denied.
While some suspected the tension was carefully staged to boost Lib Dem election hopes, Mr Huhne insisted, as the results came in, relationships had grown frayed.
Nick Clegg has been a shady operator from the beginning. He isn't so much a person as a series of compromises and gimmicks. If he hasn't the balls to call for no-confidence vote after Cameron walked over him in this way, then his own party should get rid of him and replace him with someone who stands for something.
In a way I feel sorry for Clegg, he was damned if he went with the Tories or Labour. The Lib Dems are dead in the polls and would be annihilated if an election was called, so they're in it for the long haul. It looks like Huhne could oust him though.
