X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Coffee House

Pushing the boundaries

4 August 2012

12:00 PM

4 August 2012

12:00 PM

The conventional wisdom about the consequences of the failure of Lords reform is that the Liberal Democrats will wreak their revenge for the Conservatives’ ‘breach of contract’ by scuppering the boundary changes. Over the past few months, the party has taken great pains to link the two reforms, and now that it is clear that the first will not go through, all focus is on the second.

There is much that still needs to become clear about how this will work; the biggest question of all being how Lib Dem ministers can vote against the changes without being sacked. But don’t expect the whole party to troop through the ‘no’ lobby on this issue.

I was surprised yesterday by a conversation I had with a senior Liberal Democrat MP, who told me that the party should allow the boundary review to go through the Commons to safeguard the coalition. The MP said:

[Alt-Text]


‘I we get into the position of saying that ‘we will vote for X only if you vote for Y, or we will not vote for X only because you did not vote or Y, then the days of the coalition would be numbered. Remember that the purpose of the coalition was to restore economic stability.’

He pointed out that it would be all very well to dispense with the boundary changes were the UK seeing growth of two or three per cent, but last week’s 0.7 per cent drop in GDP shows that there is still much work to do on this. The coalition’s purpose has not yet been fulfilled.

He added:

‘I suspect that the electorate would be pretty unforgiving if they find themselves in the midst of a general election caused by the inability of the coalition parties to keep their promises in the coalition agreement when the principle purpose of that agreement is stability of the economy has not been achieved. The purpose of this coalition is economic stability: we have not achieved that. If the coalition were not founded in these circumstances it would be different.’

So this would mean the Liberal Democrats essentially taking the failure of Lords reform on the chin for the good of the economy. In the eyes of voters, it would be a noble sacrifice, but it would also make party management a nightmare for David Cameron, as his MPs would now believe that the Conservatives could break other promises in the Coalition agreement without any real consequences from their partners, save a bit of hand-wringing from the likes of Simon Hughes and Tim Farron in various media outlets in the run-up to a vote. Even if the majority of the Lib Dem party decides to give the Tories a bit of a hard time in the lobbies, there won’t be unity in their revenge.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close