The news that David Cameron has been unable to persuade Conservative MPs to support the House of Lords Reform Bill is disappointing, but unsurprising given the scale of the threatened rebellion. Liberal Democrats must accept this situation – frustrating as it is – and concentrate on what is now important: the party’s response.
Anger will be the natural reaction of many in the party – and understandably so. Liberal Democrat MPs have walked through the Aye Lobby more times than they care to remember to support Conservative measures from the coalition agreement. Yet when it comes to doing their bit to uphold the bargain, a large group of Conservative MPs now seem unable to put the national interest – a stable government – ahead of their desire to give Nick Clegg a bloody nose.
And to think there were some who believed the Lib Dems would be the coalition partner too immature to be trusted with power.
But Liberal Democrats should avoid this natural anger turning to petulance. Responding to the irresponsibility of the Tories in kind will be good for neither government nor party.
A public spat between bad-tempered backbench Lib Dems and rebellious Tories would be unedifying for both but worse politics for the junior partners. After all, Liberal Democrat success in coalition will depend on demonstrating two things: that pluralistic politics delivers good government and that the party has the sense of responsibility befitting a party of power.
That is not to say that there should not be consequences stemming from this significant breach of trust. The reduction in the size of the House of Commons and the associated boundary changes are the obvious measures for the government to drop. Individual Conservative MPs might not be keen on the changes, but their overall effect would undoubtedly be beneficial to the Tories. And, as Lord Rennard has pointed out, there are strong principled reasons to drop these changes, which would strengthen the executive’s grip over the legislature, given that there is no longer going to be a legitimate House of Lords to redress the imbalance.
However, this should not be done in a vindictive way. Nick Clegg should hold a press conference and calmly but firmly confirm that, as the prime minister is no longer able to deliver his MPs on an important measure contained within the coalition agreement, Liberal Democrats are not willing to deliver the Conservative’s favoured constitutional reform.
This is an unfortunate situation to be in, Clegg should say, but Conservative MPs have to stick to their part of the agreement if they want to deliver on Conservative priorities. And he should assure the public that for the Liberal Democrat’s part this issue has no wider bearing on the remainder of the coalition’s programme, with the two parties united in the efforts to repair Britain’s economy.
Such a statement would be unusual, but it would be mature and responsible. And if the Conservative response is neither mature nor responsible the public can make up their own mind about which approach they prefer.
Right-wing Tories actually have good reason to feel in rebellious mood – this coalition, ruling from the centre, is shutting out their agenda on a whole range of issues. But if their actions over Lords reform, and the consequences that flowed from them, makes them realise one thing it should be this: only by working with, not against, the Liberal Democrats do they have a chance of delivering on their priorities. And the greatest irony is this: by killing Lords reform, and therefore the boundary changes, this group has just made it a whole lot more likely that their party will be reliant on Liberal Democrat votes for another five years.
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Electrification of the Midland Mainline is paused yet again
Ninewells Community Garden Big Biodiversity Bash #dundeewestend
UN panel raises concerns about impact of Labour's welfare bill
Reform turn up in time for the end of the meeting
Peter Martin
Andy Daer
David McDowall
Mohammed Amin
Graham Jeffs
31 Comments
“And the greatest irony is this: by killing Lords reform, and therefore the boundary changes, this group has just made it a whole lot more likely that their party will be reliant on Liberal Democrat votes for another five years”.
—————-
I do so hope not! However, I would like to propose something which could be dealt with in the 14 days lost. What happened about the CORRUPTION IN LOBBYING? I thought everyone agreed this needed to be sorted out. Perhaps this could fill the gap.
I agree with this article.
However I think it is optimistic to think that the spat will reach a conclusion when the Lib Dems oppose boundary changes. Be in no doubt that the Tories will then seek revenge for that.
It is difficult to see how a party that purports to be in favour of greater democracy would vote against equalising the size of constituencies. To say that it will not be safe to reduce the numbers of MPs without a more “legitimate” House of Lords is not an argument that will be understood by most voters, not least when there is a need to reduce government spending.
Whilst, for credibility, that may be the best approach for Clegg to take, there is simply no way he will do so !
@Julian – one of the key arguments made by opponents of Lords reform at this time is that there are more important things for the House of Commons to be spending time on. I’m sure those same MPs would accept that the same applies to any further time being spent on boundary changes. Neither are big priorities for most electors.
The boundary changes are not a positive step for democracy. They are an attempt to reduce opposition seats by a party that has progressively lost support since the 1950s. They failed to gain a majority in the last election, and so are trying to carve up constituencies because they don’t actually have the votes to win outright. Do we really want a return to a time when Churchill won an election despite having fewer votes than the Labour Party.?
It make zero sense in a first past the post system for a party to actively pursue reducing the number of seats they hold. Really this proposal should have been squashed after the AV fiasco because it’s not in the Lib Dems interests
It’s not complicated. The whole political system in the UK is constructed for the convenience of the Tory and Labour parties and designed to exclude and marginalise all other voices including the Liberal Democrats, who have been hugely penalised over the years even when they have polled at levels not much below that achieved by Labour in 2010. Any liberal involved in politics knows how much the system is stacked against them. Having achieved a position in Government, after an absence of two generations, it would be absurd and obscene were the only change made to our system of government to be a new set of boundaries designed solely to further entrench the advantage of one of the two larger parties, when they already win more seats than their share of national support deserves.
Surely, for once, self-interest has got to play some legitimate part in ditching the boundary changes. But there is actually
another quite good reason for leaving this measure at least for another parliamentary term. The 2010 election brought
in a large number of new MPs in all parties, many of them youngish people. A number of them have shown themselves to be interesting and independent-minded people. It would be good for the future of politics and for the country in general if these members were given a chance to develop their careers further, without having to scramble for new seats,
some of them with little prospect of re-election.
Great article, couldn’t have put it better myself really.
@Julian. This would not be a vote ‘against equalising the size of constituencies’. Boundary reviews have always had as their primary purpose equalising the size of constituencies – and so they should, although unequally sized constituencies cause a relatively minor distortion in results compared with other ‘problems’ with the system. But the present proposals do much more than that. The present proposals are a much more radical change, the effect of which would be to entrench Tory, and to a lesser but still significant extent Labour, power at the expense of the smaller parties.
The author of this article is right that petulance isn’t the way forwards. Perhaps the best way would be to vote through boundary reforms and then break off the coalition. I’m certainly a capitalist liberal but it’s now clear that the Tories cannot be trusted.
With a new leader we could certainly claw back about 5-8% of the vote from Labour and probably see circumstances after a new election which would see another hung parliament but with us having options to pair with either Labour or the Tories. We really shouldn’t think of things in electoral terms but rather in terms of what we hope to achieve by remaining in the coalition.
I do imagine when this is officially announced they may offer us some form of bribe. Perhaps a raise in the tax threshold to £13k as this suits both Liberal and Tory ends. I’m not opposed to us taking a new offer but if it’s not good enough or is not forthcoming then we should definitely consider walking.
@Tommy5d
We must not focus exclusively on clawing back support from Labour. The moderate Tory voter who was won back to the Conservative Party by Cameron’s modernising attempt is just as valid a target as it becomes increasingly obvious that the backbenchers rule the roost and are determined to keep the party rooted in the Thatcher past.
Boundary changes to try (where possible) to equalise constituencies is a reasonable principle and should continue.
What now has no justification is a reduction in the number of MPs. In fact with FPTP democratic representation would be improved by a large increase in the number of MPs. Larger constituencies tends to average out the variations in voting patterns and the tendency of one party to take the lions share of the MPs. Clearly if all constituencies were averagely composed only one party would end up with MPs.
If the number of MPs were increased by 500, it would increase the likelihood that there would be a higher proportion of Lib Dem, independents and minority parties represented.
I’m sorry — are the Lib Dems really going to let this drop without bringing it to a final vote, so that everybody can see for the record who was on what side? Maybe you can’t win, but you can at least turn a loss into an object-lesson. If you just “park” an initiative and leave it to die, it looks much weaker than if you struggled for it with passion to the very end. What impression is left to Lib Dem supporters if it’s shown that their MPs don’t care about the things they claim to stand for.
And what sort of game is Cameron playing? How can one seriously believe that he’s unable to command his own party when an important vote comes up? Isn’t that what the party whips are for? Either he’s the weakest, most ineffectual Tory PM since Neville Chamberlain, or he’s playing a double game, saying one thing to the Lib Dem MPs and another to his own backbenchers.
I agree with a good number of comments here; Lets us admit publically that here is a case for equalising constituencies but argue the reduction in MP’s is unsuportable without other reforms – And make it clear we ‘signed up’ to a whole package, not for a situation where the Tories are allowed to cherry pick the elements that are benefitial to them (and in this one case, fairly benefitial).
The problem. of course, with any electoral reform is the only people who get to decide are the ones who have self interest in the final decision. Speaker after speaker in the HoL debate said ‘Libdems only want this because it benefits them’. Actually 11% of the current Lords are LibDem so if the polls are as bad as some, an elected HoL would make no difference to our representation, but thats not the point I would make. The debate should have started with an acceptance on both sides of the self interest, and then proceeded on what would be good for our democracy.
I’m not so niaive to think that was going to happen
The boundary changes never deserved our support in the first place. So OK, they remove a small-ish inbuilt bias towards Labour. That’s the only good thing about them. They also perpetuate and increase the large inbuilt bias against the Lib Dems and smaller parties. They also create unnatural, unstable constituencies which act to break the link between the MP and the voters, and thereby to degrade democracy. We should have no shame whatsoever in voting them down. Our only shame is that we didn’t do it earlier.
There were – as far as I am aware – only three main groups of seats which were in the category of disproportional electorates (on the small side). 1 Welsh seats, 2 Seats with very sparse electorates, 3 Seats in depopulating (or formerly depopulating) inner cities. None of these justified the ludicrous overreaction of a boundary review every General Election (this, of course, is what it is all about). Group 1 should be dealt with in the same way as Scotland, as a package of measures strengthening the devolved Govt in Wales, and only then. Group 2 should remain – any combination of huge areas will make representation very difficult. This has been recognised in the North of Scotland – why not elsewhere? 3 These are dealt with appropriately every 3 GEs in the normal boundary review processes. There is, of course, one well known on the large side – the Isle of Wight – and this has not changed because LOCAL PEOPLE (capital letters to show the Lib Dem association) have opposed it. It is much more important that people be organised in natural communities where possible, and to leave constituencies relatively stable over a period of time than to fiddle about with dubious, and rather bonkers attempts to equalise constituencies within two decimal places (OK, an overstatement, but you will understand my meaning).
In terms of reduction of numbers – why was this needed? Frankly, in workload terms, more MPs are needed! Why did a so called democratic party ever support this measure? (rhetorical question – for populist, politician hating reasons, of course). So having to commit ourselves to dropping these proposals, and to find the words to justify, should be a bit of a cathartic process!
Boundary changes, house of lords reform, tuition fees, all areas where the lib dems have postured for so long but never had the bravery to stand up and say what they represent when it comes to the crunch for fear of coalition meltdown and being out of influence in government once more. The irony being that without actually standing up and fighting their current influence is little and the public see the party as sell outs therefore making government influence less and potentially more distant come a general election than ever before. Better to take a stand on the values that allowed the party to have influence in the first place and be seen as honouring the pledges to their voting supporters in order to be seen as a party that tries its utmost to deliver what they promised and gain credibility and more voters in doing so.
…………………………Nick Clegg should hold a press conference and calmly but firmly confirm that, as the prime minister is no longer able to deliver his MPs on an important measure contained within the coalition agreement, Liberal Democrats are not willing to deliver the Conservative’s favoured constitutional reform…………….
Agreed!
If we wish to be seen as anything more than ‘Orange Tories’ there has to come a point , in this coalition, when we say “No!”
On Tuition Fees, NHS, Welfare, Disability and even ‘the Jeremy Hunt affair’ we have put Tory interests ahead of our own “For the sake of the coalition”. As has been said, the boundary changes will adversely affect us far more than the Tory/Labour parties so withdrawing support will a) be in our interests b) allow Clegg to show that he is the leader of a seperate party within the coalition.
Will it happen? I doubt it.
Pardon me for being so cyncial, but if the Lib Dems can so easily say ‘No’ (to something that is so very obviously against their self interest), then it begs the question why they didn’t say ‘No’ to tuition fees, VAT, welfare & NHS reforms, etc. It’ll just make you look like a party that puts self-interest first.
” if the Lib Dems can so easily say ‘No’ (to something that is so very obviously against their self interest), then it begs the question why they didn’t say ‘No’ to tuition fees, VAT, welfare & NHS reforms, etc.” ~ Steve
Steve, you need a better list: on tuition fees there is now a system in which those who are not paid above the average wage will get the free tuition that the Lib Dems wanted. Those earning more will have more money taken though PAYE, so similar to a tax. Where the system gets unstuck is that it is regressive at the very top end (those on £80 000 +. On VAT, the Lib Dems warned that both other parties would not be able to balance budgets without a VAT rise, they said that it would be necessary. Like it or not, it was (unless you favour greater cuts). On NHS reform, the Lib Dems have long championed greater local control. Admittedly this seems to have been hijacked by Lansley in ways that could be potentially; nonetheless accusations of privatising the NHS are usually the product of hysteria rather than analysis. In fact the Lib Dems did a lot of saying ‘NO’, which is why the bill was extensively modified.
The issue is the democratic agenda. The Lib Dems cannot possibly argue against the principal of more equally sized constituencies, it is the reduction in the number of elected representatives that is at issue. On democratic grounds with FPTP there is a much stronger argument for increasing the number of MPs.
It is essential to Lib Dems that they do not leave the electoral system less democratic than it was before. You could say that the Lib Dems commitment to democracy is borne of ‘self interest’, but unless you are not in favour of democratic values, then surely that is no bad thing.
On a personal note it is the commitment to improving democracy that motivates me to vote for and support the Liberal Democrats. Who would or could I vote for if they abandoned this commitment?
We should be demanding a £13k tax threshold, not waiting for them to offer it ( and claim it as their idea) -Tommy5d .
But there are two things gauranteed about this impasse.. a) Clegg will balance all the issues and advice, then make a sound decision, as always, and b) the media will rewrite the story to suit their bias and the agenda of their paymasters.
Clegg’s office must make sure that every party member gets a clear prompt message setting out the facts, not wait until the press have done their worst and then send out some defensive rebuttal letter when the damage has been done.
So because one part of electoral reform is torpedoed by the Tories, we also have to torpedo one? Doh! Yes the Tory Right have acted appallingly – I don’t deny that. For our response to simply be “well they stopped us doing this, so we’ll stop them doing that”, is childish and pathetic. Yes the boundary changes probably will benefit the Tories but that’s because the present system massively favours Labour, due to urban seats being smaller and so easier to win. There is also the principle of fairness, and seats should be the same size roughly. What is so bad about that? Surely that is the Lib Dem thing to do? I’m afraid these childish games do nobody any good, and they look terrible to the public.
I can understand anger from Lib Dems – I am angry myself. Please though can we not stoop to the Tories’ level , and actually do what is right? I have a feeling the Tories are starting to irritate us enough so we leave. So let’s really annoy them and stay the course, starting with boundary changes. AV would have benefited us massively, so let’s not pretend it’s only the Tories who are doing it.
@Martin
” Where the system gets unstuck is that it is regressive at the very top end (those on £80 000 +.”
The figure is actually around the mid £30,000s. Those who earn a lifetime average of more than that pay less as a proportion of their income. Those on less pay less as a proportion of their income. When the best ‘argument’ the Lib Dems can come up with to justify the new tuition fee system is: “You’ll be better off if you don’t get a graduate job at the end of the course”, then it’s hardly any wonder why you’re languishing on 10% in the polls.
As for your spin about VAT – putting up large posters warning of a Tory VAT tax bombshell (with small print at the bottom saying the warning is about funding commitments rather than about potential VAT rises) then going ahead and raising VAT just confirms to the voting public that the Lib Dems are the worst example of stereotypical sleazy politicians – especially given the promise of a new way of doing politics! You ignore the horrific outcomes that have resulted from welfare ‘reform’. The NHS reforms (supposedly putting power in the hands of GPs, etc) were against the wishes of those very same GPs – not what I’d call empowering doctors exactly.
“Such a statement would be unusual, but it would be mature and responsible.”
Lol, let us please separate the equalising of boundaries from the reduction of MP’s.
If there needs to be an argument over reducing seats, which lets remember is unpopular to many sitting Tory MP’s , then fine. However, if the Lib-Dem’s, as the self professed party of reason and principle, vote against equalising constituencies then i will laugh my socks off as it announces to the electorate that raison d’etre of the party has just been jettisoned!
Martin – you say that we cannot against more equal size constituencies. In that statement you have made no attempt to address the issues raised in my earlier post, and that of David Allen. The problem with the current reforms in this area is an obsession (purely for Westminster constituencies) with numbers to the exclusion of other factors, and with regularity of changes, which are both more expensive to carry out, and demotivating to those electors in the many affected areas. And goodness knows, there is enough demotivation already in the field of voting, and antipathy towards politicians! I would ask how you justify what appear to be one – eyed comments on this?
Tim13 (thanks for the response): I assumed that David Allen’s comment referred to the proposed reduction in the number of MPs. Given that we are stuck with FPTP, I would be in favour of a significant increase in the number of MPs. The disruption constituency boundaries that he speaks of are largely a product of reducing the number of constituencies.
I very much agree to your earlier post, but would go further by creating new constituencies where population increase has been most marked.
AS you have written, the need for equally sized constituencies is over emphasised: it would be an important issue under a proportional representation system and under AV, because under these systems there is a direct relationship between the votes cast for a candidate and who is elected. Under FPTP, this simply does not exist, so the the argument for equal sized constituencies is much weakened and other the other factors that you have cited – continuity and the integrity of natural communities – become comparatively more important.
jbt – there isn’t always one answer based on “reason and principle”, you know! The preamble to the Lib Dem constitution famously sets out balances to be achieved eg between community and individual needs, and although everyone will set their own “balances”, I think most documents setting out key principles will look to balance in some way or another.
In this case, trying to make crude numbers so important in the equation, wrecks other attributes of the constituency and representation system. There is not any widespread clamour out there, either, that “these constituency boundaries are desperately unfair”, because, apart from anything else, there is a system to rectify over time, any unjustified imbalances, which works. The issue within this which should be addressed, separately, is Wales. IMO, and hwat many others think, is that the electorates of Welsh constituencies should be increased (ie decreasing overall numbers) in conjunction with giving more tax spending, and lawmaking powers to the Welsh Government. The recent survey of Welsh opinion shows they are ready for this now. This has been a long term historical issue, and to just overturn this without the accompanying changes seems perverse.
Thanks, Martin – yes, I agree with your points.
To Steve (not sure you will be back so I will be brief): I picked £80 000 out of the air to some extent. I have done the calculations and I know that in theory the regressive effect begins at bit below £40 000, but that is based on average earnings, but earnings vary over a lifetime. It is at higher levels that the disparity becomes most obvious (I should have put £89 000 +/- 20 000).
I just do not see your VAT argument, Lib Dems correctly pointed out a VAT increase sized hole in budget plans. How is that sleazy? How is pretending that taxes do not have to increase when they obviously have to (much greater cuts are implemented) less sleazy? Naturally I am nervous about NHS reforms, however it is obvious that talk of a USA health system is nonsense and the bill has been significantly amended to include important safeguards.
Does anyone have any thoughts as to the response if Cameron were to propose dropping the reduction in MPs ? Although I guess this would require going through the whole process of looking at how different sized constituencies could be created, etc.
On the whole I find it difficult to square Clegg’s support for this measure, the democratic pretensions of the LibDem party, and recent rumblings from Clegg and Hughes. This was not tied to Lords reform in the coalition agreement, however much it may be wished that it had been – it simply wasn’t, it was tied to the AV referendum.
Coalitions should expect backbencher rebellions – Lib Dems rebelled on Tuition fees for example. The difference in this case is that the Lib Dems have allowed themselves to be manipulated by Labour voting against Lords reform – Labour is now much more likely to get a full majority, meaning no requirement for the Lib Dems in coalition with either the Tories or Labour.
In short, it has very much the feeling of “I want A (Lords Reform)” and “I want B (reduction in seats and fair constituencies” yet Clegg has cut his nose off to spite his face and opted to throw B away because The Tories could not deliver A.
As someone stated above nobody wins from this aside from Labour and Tory rebels (some of which stand to retain their seat!). As the Lib Dems have got nothing from this piece of tit for tat – aside from perhaps looking a little silly. Would it not have been possible to stand above this?
Oh and this is my first post. I voted for the Tories in the last election to remove Labour but do not know how I will vote next time (not impressed with Cameron), but find reading/talking to Lib Dems interesting.