Unfinished Business: Boundary Changes, Breaches of Contract and the Coalition

August 22, 2012 4:31 pm

Author:

Tags:

Share this Article

It has been a curious political August.

Nick Clegg’s statement on the Liberal Democrats’ intention to vote against the proposed Parliamentary boundary changes, initiated by the Coalition Government of which he is Deputy Minister, would normally command headlines for days.

Under cover of the Olympics, Clegg’s news management worked, but when the Prime Minister said that he intended the proposals to be taken forward, Cameron ensured that this was an issue which will return to haunt the Coalition.

In a little noticed part of Clegg’s statement, he said: “The Government will make a full statement on this – to Parliament – as soon as it returns in September.”

Well, that will be interesting. What will the Government say? For “the Government” does not have a position on this matter. As David Cameron made clear following Clegg’s statement, he intends, as Tory Leader, to press on with the boundary changes. Nick Clegg says that when votes take place on boundary changes for the 2015 election “Liberal Democrats in Parliament will oppose them.”

There was much talk from Nick Clegg in his statement of a “breach of contract” by the Tories, an interpretation denied vehemently by Cameron. In my days as a law student, I learned that a fundamental breach of a contract entitles the parties to it to terminate it. The Liberal Democrats seem to have had a different contract law lecturer.

Clegg wants us to “draw a line under these events and get on with the rest of our programme for Government.” Jeremy Browne MP repeated this approach: “What has become clear is that the two parties cannot agree on that constitutional reform package and it seems to me to make sense that if there’s an area we can’t agree on, we put that to one side, we accept that we can’t agree on that and we get on with working together on all the areas we can agree on,” he told the BBC.

The Liberal Democrats want to leave the issue hanging in mid-air whilst the Coalition Government continues as if nothing has happened.

Agreements do not work like that. If an agreement is broken, then there are consequences. But this Government is so split, it cannot even agree on whether the Coalition Agreement has been broken.

When Parliament returns, the British people need to know whether its Government considers that the Coalition Agreement has been broken on constitutional reform and what it intends to do next. The Boundary Commission is continuing with a protracted and expensive review of boundaries and will continue to do so unless Parliament tells it otherwise. In Wales alone, more than £600,000 has been spent already.

But it is now highly unlikely that any boundary changes will happen, at least before 2015. To continue the review in the context of the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement is a scandalous waste of time, money and effort.

But the real significance of breaking agreements is its impact on trust between the parties to it. Trust, once lost, is very difficult to rebuild. In Parliament, MPs have seen tension between the Tories and Liberal Democrats building over the last two years. Nick Clegg’s statement on boundary changes, even though delivered in the dog days of August, will deepen the breach between the parties, a breach which goes to the heart of this Coalition Government’s capacity to govern effectively. At a time of deepening economic crisis, the consequence of this breach of contract is that Britain will lose out.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    For a trained solicitor, the author’s argument appears somewhat tenuous, particularly where he tries to match together what appear to be disparate logical and political outcomes:

    Logically the coalition may choose to break the agreement over this single issue, but logically they should not do so if they wish to continue governing: I will need to be reminded how the fixed term parliament bill works, but I seem to recall was that the Prime Minister cannot now call a new election to try and consolidate his position without a vote of no confidence dissolving parliament first; therefore breaking the agreement would lead to a minority government with a weaker LD negotiating position should a new agreement be sought.

    Clearly such a situation would not benefit either party, but nor can I see how it could be an improvement on the situation for the country as a whole, though I can see how it might result in a potentially beneficial political situation for Labour.

    • AlanGiles

       David, I think the truth is a snap election would benefit nobody – though so many are dispirited about the Coaltion (even the free newspaper City A.M. likes to take aim at Osborne now), and even it’s best frinds could not claim it to have been a success, I am not sure the public would endorse Labour with a workable majority, since it is only 2 years since the last unsuccesful election.

      I suspect we would get another hung Parliament – probably with the votes of disgruntled LibDems going fairly evenly between Labour and Conservative, and in such a way neither party would get a workable majority.

      I think it is probably better that Labour let the Coalition fight it out between themselves, and the public will probably tire of their bickering more as time goes on.

      This is no consolation regarding the economic state of the country, but I don’t think the public feel at the moment that there can be much change for the better anyway.

      The longer the coalition shamble on, the more unpopular they will get: now we hear that the obligation for “affordable” housing to developers might be dropped, and the suggestion of further cuts in October to the welfare budget, the last thing Labour should do is to persue the “broadly in agreement” stance.

      Stay aloof from the coalition’s fights, at the same time as offering hope and a new solution to our problems, would be my advice.

  • http://twitter.com/renieanjeh Renie Anjeh

    In spite of all of this, the Coalition will probably last until 2015. Both of them are scared to death of a General Election.

  • MonkeyBot5000

    In my days as a law student, I learned that a fundamental breach of a contract entitles the parties to it to terminate it.

    In my days as a voter, I learned that electoral promises are completely unenforceable as argued in court by lawyers employed (at my expense) by a certain G. Brown.

    If an agreement is broken, then there are consequences.

    Unless you’re a politician, in which case you can promise something, fail to deliver it and be immune from getting fired.

    Politicians will say whatever they think will get them what they want and the rest of us just have to roll the dice at election time and hope for the best.

  • MonkeyBot5000

    Has LL gone fully pre-moderated now?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.robathan.5 Ian Robathan

    On the boundary changes, they were such a farce that they deserve to be killed alone on created god damm awful boundaries because the rules were too strict.

    What should happen is a motion or amendment is put down within hours of parliament returning by a backbench Lab and LD MP and get a vote on it to force the LD’s into what they say then we move on.

  • markfergusonuk

    For the time being, people will be slowly taken off moderation one by one

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZPXYLRVP4XOIGGDJWAL6HUO7U4 David

    Completely agree with the need to offer hope and new solutions, and with your snap election analysis, but I still question how such an election could even happen: is it not only a vote of no confidence that allows the dissolution of parliament mid-term now?

Latest

  • Featured Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    Technology isn’t just something for geeks to worry about

    If you Google ‘Ed Miliband,’ you quickly get the old stuff about him being a bit of geek. His appearance at Google’s big Tent on Wednesday almost begged the headline “Geek Goes Home”. But that assumes technology is just something for geeks to worry about, and that Ed is a techie. Neither are true. What we saw on Wednesday was a leader with the courage to tell Google straight that it should live up to its founding principles on the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

    Woolwich: The British people – and our politicians – have risen to the occasion

    “We want to start a war” – Woolwich attacker “right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose” - Ingrid Loyau-Kennett Only 24 hours ago, news began to trickle through about a barbarous crime, committed on the streets of our capital city, in broad daylight. It seems that the murderers who attacked and brutally murdered a soldier felt they were acting in a way endorsed by their religious beliefs and their god. But to try and [...]

    Read more →
  • News

    Labour NEC Report – 21st May 2013

    Party Organisation The General Secretary (GS) noted the party’s good performance in the recent Local, Mayoral and South Shields elections and thanked all members, activists and staff for their contribution to that success. The committee discussed the work of Blue State Digital who have been brought in to revolutionise the party’s use of new and social media as part of our suite of campaign tools. It was noted that Matthew McGregor, Head of Blue State Digital’s London Office and former [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Labour’s London Assembly Leader responds to Woolwich attack

    Following yesterday’s attack in Woolwich, Leader of the Labour Group on the London Assembly Len Duvall AM said: “The attack in Woolwich was horrific, the actions of local people in response and the head-teacher and staff at the school are a reflection of the values and strength of our community. “At this afternoon’s London Assembly Police and Crime Committee questions will be asked about yesterday’s attack and the response, and at a future assembly meeting we will come together to [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

    If Labour is to build One Nation, it must be a safe and equal one for women

    Today End Violence Against Women (EVAW) releases a new report auditing the Government’s progress in acting to prevent violence against women and girls. And with the revelations from Operation Yewtree and group exploitation cases set to roll on for many months , we hope the response from Parliament, policy-makers and the media will be unanimous : that prevention must be at the top of the priority list for any government, of any colour, from now on. On that basis, it’s [...]

    Read more →