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

Show Hide image

Leader: Mourning in Manchester

Yet another attack shows we are going to have to get to used to the idea that our liberalism and our freedoms can only be preserved by a strong state.

Children are murdered and maimed by a suicide bomber as they are leaving a pop concert in Manchester. As a consequence, the government raises the terror threat to “critical”, which implies that another attack is imminent, and the army is sent out on to the streets of our cities in an attempt to reassure and encourage all good citizens to carry on as normal. The general election campaign is suspended. Islamic State gleefully denounces the murdered and wounded as “crusaders” and “polytheists”.

Meanwhile, the usual questions are asked, as they are after each new Islamist terrorist atrocity. Why do they hate us so much? Have they no conscience or pity or sense of fellow feeling? We hear, too, the same platitudes: there is more that unites us than divides us, and so on. And so we wait for the next attack on innocent civilians, the next assault on the free and open society, the next demonstration that Islamism is the world’s most malignant and dangerous ideology.

The truth of the matter is that the Manchester suicide bomber, Salman Ramadan Abedi, was born and educated in Britain. He was 22 when he chose to end his own life. He had grown up among us: indeed, like the London bombers of 7 July 2005, you could call him, however reluctantly, one of us. The son of Libyan refugees, he supported Manchester United, studied business management at Salford University and worshipped at Didsbury Mosque. Yet he hated this country and its people so viscerally that he was prepared to blow himself up in an attempt to murder and wound as many of his fellow citizens as possible.

The Manchester massacre was an act of nihilism by a wicked man. It was also sadly inevitable. “The bomb was,” writes the Mancunian cultural commentator Stuart Maconie on page 26, “as far as we can guess, an attack on the fans of a young American woman and entertainer, on the frivolousness and foolishness and fun of young girlhood, on lipstick and dressing up and dancing, on ‘boyfs’ and ‘bezzies’ and all the other freedoms that so enrage the fanatics and contradict their idiot dogmas. Hatred of women is a smouldering core of their wider, deeper loathing for us. But to single out children feels like a new low of wickedness.”

We understand the geopolitical context for the atrocity. IS is under assault and in retreat in its former strongholds of Mosul and Raqqa. Instead of urging recruits to migrate to the “caliphate”, IS has been urging its sympathisers and operatives in Europe to carry out attacks in their countries of residence. As our contributing writer and terrorism expert, Shiraz Maher, explains on page 22, these attacks are considered to be acts of revenge by the foot soldiers and fellow-travellers of the caliphate. There have been Western interventions in Muslim lands and so, in their view, all civilians in Western countries are legitimate targets for retaliatory violence.

An ever-present threat of terrorism is the new reality of our lives in Europe. If these zealots can murder children at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, there is no action that they would not consider unconscionable. And in this country there are many thousands – perhaps even tens of thousands – who are in thrall to Islamist ideology. “Terror makes the new future possible,” the American Don DeLillo wrote in his novel Mao II, long before the al-Qaeda attacks of 11 September 2001. The main work of terrorists “involves mid-air explosions and crumbled buildings. This is the new tragic narrative.”

Immediately after the Paris attacks in November 2015, John Gray reminded us in these pages of how “peaceful coexistence is not the default condition of modern humankind”. We are going to have to get used to the idea that our liberalism and our freedoms can only be preserved by a strong state. “The progressive narrative in which freedom is advancing throughout the world has left liberal societies unaware of their fragility,” John Gray wrote. Liberals may not like it, but a strong state is the precondition of any civilised social order. Certain cherished freedoms may have to be compromised. This is the new tragic narrative.

This article first appeared in the 25 May 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Why Islamic State targets Britain

0800 7318496