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

Both organisations, of course, are non-partisan and have taken all the usual measures to comply with the rules pertaining to educational and charitable bodies. Though prominent politicians from all three parties are associated with them, it is realistic to comment that their main thrust is to promote the Liberal Democrat vision of a polity in which coalition governments are the norm, the dominance of Conservatives and Labour is destroyed and the role of experts and civil servants increases.

In 2009, as the time for a general election approached and the Tory lead in the polls declined, the attractive possibility of a hung parliament excited the reformers. If the Liberal Democrats held the balance of power, this could provide the opportunity to force one or other of them to agree to electoral reform, which could transform their fortunes.

Through 2009, Hazell worked with the Institute for Government to produce a report Making Minority Government Work. A feature of the study was the personal contact of the lead authors with the Cabinet Secretary. At the same time, Peter Riddell, the highly respected assistant editor of The Times, was also associated with the Institute's work. Before the election, Riddell divided his time between journalism and employment at the Institute for Government. He left The Times after the 2010 election to work there full-time. 

By the summer of 2009, the Institute for Government and Constitution Unit teams were meeting with O'Donnell and other officials. In October and November 2009, Riddell and Hazell were the lead authors of two reports on transitions and on minority governments published by the Institute for Government. 

Around the same time, Ditchley Park, a secluded country house near Oxford, provided the setting for an important gathering at which they rolled out their findings. During the Second World War, Churchill had repaired to Ditchley at weekends when a full moon made Chequers too tempting a target for the Luftwaffe. In recent years, it has been a gathering place for high-level Anglo-American and other conferences. The stated purpose of the meeting of November 5-7, 2009, was to compare governmental transitions in the UK and the USA. The innocent title was "Managing the machinery of government in periods of change." The presence of the Queen's private secretary, the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Justice, Conservative politicians, later to be the most closely associated with the post-2010 coalition government, and carefully selected constitutional experts indicated that there might be an additional agenda. The Institute for Government was strongly represented.

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.