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.