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

The masterly 2009 book by Vernon Bogdanor, The New British Constitution, set out the overall consequences for British political life of a series of reforms, each seemingly innocent and desirable but productive of a systematic assault on the traditional British constitution and on parliamentary sovereignty. I fully agree with him about the importance of the changes and have to admit that I failed to appreciate their likely impact when they were being introduced. Where I part company with him and with his fellow constitutional reformers is that I feel the new order is dangerous and undesirable and must be fought with vigour.

Bogdanor identifies British entry into Europe, devolution and the Human Rights Act 1998 as key elements of a much larger programme of changes. The remarkable feature of the constitutional revolution is the fact that obscure but determined lobby groups, together with sympathetic civil servants, have been able to wield so much influence.

Two bodies played key roles behind the scenes in the run-up to the 2010 general election: the Constitution Unit at UCL and the Institute for Government, a grand new creation with headquarters in the Privy Council offices near the Mall. Both had unusually close access to O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, and to the staff of the Constitution Unit within the Ministry of Justice. 

The Constitution Unit at UCL was founded in 1995 by a former civil servant at the Home Office, Robert Hazell. With money from several funders including the Ministry of Justice and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, (a creation of Lord (David) Sainsbury, the billionaire who successively bankrolled the SDP and New Labour) Hazell created a leading institution whose influence he justifiably celebrates on its website. The Unit was  behind several of the reforms introduced after 1997 by the New Labour ministry, including devolution and the Human Rights Act 1998. When Labour failed to accept Lord (Roy) Jenkins's proposals for electoral reform, the Unit set up its own "commission" to keep the issue alive. Nick Clegg was a prominent member.

Hazell developed close connections with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, created by New Labour in 2003. It has now developed into the Ministry of Justice. Hazell wrote a book with one of its main officials. There was a circulation of staff between the Civil Service and his Unit. Hazell's Unit has raised some £3 million; Sainsbury committed £15 million in 2008 to the Institute for Government.

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.