You are here:   Constitutional Affairs > The GOD Squad's Whitehall Coup
 

During the Ditchley gathering, a "syndicate" led by Hazell discussed what were the correct constitutional procedures for forming a new government in the event of a hung parliament.

In January 2010, the Ministry of Justice sponsored another country house conference on constitutional issues, this time at Wilton Park in Sussex. 

On February 16, the Cabinet Secretary finalised the proposals for handling a political transition after a hung election at a sandwich lunch with the inner core of favoured academic experts: Hazell, Bogdanor, Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary British history at Queen Mary, University of London, and Rodney Brazier, professor of constitutional law at Manchester University.

Though the group purported to base their findings on precedent, their proposals put a novel spin on existing constitutional conventions which effectively made it harder for the Conservatives to take office if they failed to win an outright majority of seats in the coming general election. 

The next step was to arrange a rapid meeting before a select committee of the House of Commons to advertise and legitimate their proposed scheme. The senior Liberal Democrat, Alan Beith, agreed to a hearing the following week before the Justice Committee, which he chaired. The normal procedure for evidence before a select committee was abandoned. There was no time to recruit evidence from academics who were not part of O'Donnell's team or who were likely to present contrary opinions. Inevitably, the session held on February 24 was completely one-sided.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Sean McHale
April 5th, 2011
12:04 PM
This is anti-democratic nonsense. The author argues that reforms are being pushed through with little consultation yet there is a REFERENDUM on AV. It seems quite the opposite of non-consultation. What's more, Labour, the Lib Dems, the Greens & UKIP all advocated electoral reform in their election manifestos. The people voted for change. The author seems to want to constitutionally protect what he would vote for. His argument is a greater threat to democracy.

Obreption
March 31st, 2011
5:03 PM
This is a well-argued case. It certainly convinced me that AV has been neither worthy or thoughtfully argued. There is a huge waste of money and nothing will be gained apart from employment of some very third rate journalists and psephologists. I had used the collective term 'tsunami' before the Japanese earthquake and have resisted doing it since. You have pointed out a magic circle much in the same way as Alan Clark described in his diaries in Oman. If anything has shown the errors of allowing a third party to work its 'magic' it has been Clegg, who apart from pulling the wool over his own party, had pulled the wool over the electorate. I thought I was alone - this article should be directed at every LibDem councillor, agitator to make them ashamed. The word liberal has been scorned in Germany in the local elections. I can only hope that the British public will ensure that Clegg and his chums never get their hands on our tax money again. If anything, the term "AV" has sullied a useful shorthand for some Hindu philosophy (advita vedanta). Now that IS the ultimate reality!

Anonymous
March 31st, 2011
1:03 PM
Case in point: Several broadsheets reported last week that discussions are being held in the Conservative Party about the need to ‘shore up’ support for Clegg by agreeing to selected LibDem policies, should the they get a thrashing in the forthcoming local elections, and ‘even more shoring up’ should there be a ‘no’ to AV. All to save his skin, and consequently the coalition. In other words, the weaker a party becomes and the less popular with the electorate they are supposed to represent they become – the more influence they will have in setting the coalition government’s agenda. This is the surreal world of coalition politics that AV will cement for good. Should there be a ‘yes’ to AV - Cameron’s relentless pursuit of power (seemingly at any cost) might well spell the end to strong majority governments (and particularly Tory ones) for the foreseeable future. For that alone he deserves to be deposed as leader.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.