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

How the shadow cabinet forced Jeremy Corbyn not to change Labour policy on Syria air strikes

Frontbenchers made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the leader backed down. 

Jeremy Corbyn had been forced to back down once before the start of today's shadow cabinet meeting on Syria, offering Labour MPs a free vote on air strikes against Isis. By the end of the two-hour gathering, he had backed down twice.

At the start of the meeting, Corbyn's office briefed the Guardian that while he would hold a free vote, party policy would be changed to oppose military action, an attempt to claim partial victory. But shadow cabinet members, led by Andy Burnham, argued that this was "unacceptable" and an attempt to divide MPs from members. Burnham, who is not persuaded by the case for air strikes, warned that colleagues who voted against the party's proposed position would become targets for abuse, undermining the principle of a free vote.

Jon Ashworth, the shadow minister without portfolio and NEC member, said that Labour's policy remained the motion passed by this year's conference, which was open to competing interpretations (though most believe the tests it set for military action have been met). Party policy could not be changed without going through a similarly formal process, he argued. In advance of the meeting, Labour released a poll of members (based on an "initial sample" of 1,900) showing that 75 per cent opposed intervention (though it is reported that just 100 emails were checked).

When Corbyn's team suggested that the issue be resolved after the meeting, members made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the Labour leader had backed down. By the end, only Corbyn allies Diane Abbot and Jon Trickett argued that party policy should be changed to oppose military action. John McDonnell, who has long argued for a free vote, took a more "conciliatory" approach, I'm told. It was when Hilary Benn said that he would be prepared to speak from the backbenches in the Syria debate, in order to avoid opposing party policy, that Corbyn realised he would have to give way. The Labour leader and the shadow foreign secretary will now advocate opposing positions from the frontbench when MPs meet, with Corbyn opening and Benn closing. 

The meeting had begun with members, including some who reject military action, complaining about the "discorteous" and "deplorable" manner in which the issue had been handled. As I reported last week, there was outrage when Corbyn wrote to MPs opposing air strikes without first informing the shadow cabinet. There was anger today when, at 2:07pm, seven minutes after the meeting began, some members received an update from the Guardian revealing that a free vote would be held but that party policy would be changed to oppose military action. This "farcical moment", in the words of one present (Corbyn is said to have been unaware of the briefing), only hardened shadow cabinet members' resolve to force their leader to back down - and he did. 

In a statement released following the meeting, a Corbyn spokesperson confirmed that a free vote would be held but made no reference to party policy: 

"Today's Shadow Cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn's recommendation of a free vote on the Government's proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.   

"The Shadow Cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.  

"Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.