And yesterday's article by him is no exception. In it he rants and raves about the evil liberals (that's people like me by the way) who are being "disingenuous" and who are "welching" on the coalition agreement by saying that, because tories won't support Lords reform, they won't for changing the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies.
Now, just to quickly recap, Lords reform is a treasured Lib Dem policy because we don't think it's right that lawmakers in the upper house should be able to sit their for life at the taxpayers expense without anyone having ever elected them. And changing the parliamentary boundaries is a favoured tory policy because, in addition to equalising the size of constituencies, they also want to reduce the number of MPs by 50 as this would reduce the in built bias which lets Labour win a majority in parliament with fewer votes than are needed for a tory majority.
So, moving on, Andrew Lilico comes out with this gem:
But let's be clear, here. There was no Coalition agreement to introduce a Bill for a PR-elected Lords, but there was a specific commitment in the Coalition agreement to introduce a bill to reduce the number of MPs and have more equal-sized constituencies. The boundary review is, in the Coalition agreement, specifically tied to the referendum on AV which was duly held. The Conservatives have not broken any commitment in the Coalition agreement by not passing a PR-elected Lords Bill. But the Lib Dems are breaking such a commitment if they do not pass the boundary review.Now aside from the fact that "but let's be clear" is normally political code for "let's obfuscate and twist the truth" the simple fact is that Andrew Lilico undermines the entirety of his argument in the first sentence of his argument. Yes, there was no explicit commitment in the Coalition agreement to introduce a bill to reform the House of Lords. And yes there was a commitment to bring forwards a bill on changing the parliamentary constituency boundaries.
But "bring forwards a bill" does not mean "and then we will vote for it". All it commits the coalition to doing is bringing a bill before parliament. Well, there is such a bill before parliament. And Lib Dem MPs and peers voted for it in order to bring it before parliament. However, there is no commitment in the coalition agreement for them to actually vote for the boundary changes proposed by the electoral commission when they're presented to parliament. End of.
So, I hate to break it to Mr Lilico, but his entire argument is completely wrong. You see, if you're going to make arguments based on the literal interpretation of words and a legalistic look at things then it does rather help if you've actually got your facts right. Which Mr Lilico hasn't. Which all the other tories throwing tantrums about the nasty Lib Dems haven't.
But, since, as we all know, the conservative party as a whole isn't exactly blessed with an ability to see reality if it dances right in front of their face, I think I'm just going to sit back with some popcorn and watch the show. If there's one thing I truly love about this coalition it's its glorious ability to piss off the kind of right wing troglodytes who write for and comment on ConservativeHome.