Why the Lib Dems should not threaten to block the boundary changes

It only encourages Tory and Labour MPs to rebel against Lords reform.

Last week, Simon Hughes said that Nick Clegg's outgoing director of strategy, Richard Reeves, was wrong to warn that the Lib Dems could block the boundary changes if the Tories failed to support House of Lords reform. But on the Today programme this morning, the Lib Dem deputy leader made the connection himself. He told John Humphrys:

We're clear you can’t have a deal broken by one side without consequences, there would be consequences if they broke it ... The one thing that is obvious that the Tories desperately want is the Boundary Commission proposals to go through.

The Lib Dems' anger is not unreasonable. One reason that so many (91) Tory MPs rebelled last night is that they were unsure where David Cameron actually stood on the issue. The Prime Minister, in common with William Hague, the man charged with talking the rebels round, has rarely appeared convinced of the need for reform. To many Tory MPs, this lack of conviction was an invitation to rebellion.

But there are two good reasons why Hughes and others should avoid linking Lords reform to the boundary changes. The first is that it is seen as an act of bad faith by Tory MPs. It was the AV referendum that was the quid pro quo for the changes, not Lords reform. The second is that it encourages Labour MPs to rebel in the hope that the boundary reforms, which will disadvantage their party more than any other, could yet be derailed.

If the Lib Dems want to secure Lords reform, as all democrats should, the best thing they can do is to continue to make the principled case for an elected second chamber better able to constrain an overmighty executive.

Nick Clegg sits in the royal box during the men's singles final at Wimbledon. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.