Lib Dems hit back over boundary changes speculation

Source close to Clegg insists "election will be on old boundaries".

Yesterday I wrote this blog speculating about Conservative motives for keeping the boundary review in play, even when the Lib Dems have signalled their determination to vote against the plan.

The Tories, I surmised, are desperate to sustain the project on life support, even when all vital signs have gone, partly in the hope that it might yet one day be resuscitated but also because postponing its final extinction gives Conservatives a bargaining chip in other negotiations.

I have since spoken to a senior source close to Nick Clegg who, while not disputing my analysis of Tory motives, wanted to make clear that, as far as the Lib Dem leadership is concerned, the boundary changes are finished. That is non-negotiable and if the Conservatives think otherwise they "don’t quite get it".

"The next election will be fought on the old boundaries," my source said. "They [the Tories] need to accept that we are deadly serious about that … We are not going to allow boundary reform."

As for the idea of scraping together a majority in the Commons with votes from Ulster Unionists and Welsh Nationalists, Lib Dems politely point out that there are Tory MPs who would rebel in a vote on boundary changes. The whole concept of driving the whole thing through with pork-barrel promises to minor parties, say top Lib Dems, smacks of desperation on the Conservative side as the realisation dawns that winning a majority next time will be very, very hard indeed.

It is worth noting also that the "mid-term review" of coalition policy, due in November some time, has been postponed until January. This is the project that was once going to be grand renewal of vows under the Steve Hilton-esque "Coalition 2.0" rubric but was downgraded to a more modest audit of progress so far on policy implementation and outline of future priorities.

I am confidently assured that the delay says nothing at all significant about the state of relations between the two parties and that it is simply a function of the fact that the Autumn Statement (due on 5 December) is more urgent and takes up too much time, so the sequence of the two events changed. That is perfectly plausible.

Still, if there is to be a chapter on political or constitutional reform in the mid-term review the two sides clearly need to be communicating a bit more effectively about those boundary changes.

Nick Clegg pledged to veto the proposed boundary changes after David Cameron abandoned plans for House of Lords reform. Photograph: Getty Images.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.