The Convention is to a substantial degree a Conservative document. It was largely drafted by David Maxwell Fyfe, subsequently a Tory Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor, and ratified in 1953 by Sir Winston Churchill's government. Conservatives at the time were happy to endorse it, not least because, despite a healthy scepticism towards grand constitutional documents and political theories, they were even more wary of untrammelled democracy. As Churchill himself put it, in the different context of a debate on the 1947 Parliament Bill:

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time . . . Democracy . . . does not mean, ‘We have got our majority, never mind how, and we have our lease of office for five years, so what are you going to do about it?' That is not democracy, that is only small party patter . . . Of course, there must be proper executive power to any government, but our British, our English idea . . . has always been a system of balanced rights and divided authority, with many other persons and organised bodies having to be considered besides the government of the day . . ."

Nearly 30 years later Lord Hailsham, that wheezy, rabble-rousing favourite of many a Conservative conference, warned of the danger of democracy producing an "elective dictatorship". He saw a need to rebalance rights in favour of the individual. He advocated a written constitution. The Human Rights Act is a far less grandiose and, dare one say it, more Conservative solution, that enables British, not European, judges to uphold rights to which no civilised person could object: fair trial, respect for private life, freedom of religion and so on. Of course, these rights often conflict: so we need judges to adjudicate the disputes that arise. Better judicial decisions than executive fiat.

Some Conservatives have suggested that the Convention and the Human Rights Act might be replaced by a "British Bill of Rights". It is a seductive prospect but profoundly unwise. It would do nothing to enhance British sovereignty, which is under threat from the EU, not the ECHR. Withdrawal would be the easy part. A "British Bill of Rights" would require the writing of yet another lofty-sounding constitutional document of the sort that Conservatives instinctively distrust, and doing so amidst fierce controversy. Agreement on its contents would prove as elusive as agreement on the reform of the House of Lords. In short, it wouldn't happen and we would be left with a stronger executive and a weaker judiciary. 

Mr Grayling is also trying to making judicial review of government actions harder. His plain object is to increase the power of the government over individuals and minorities. That would be an understandable aim for a socialist Minister of Justice. It should not be the aim of a Conservative Lord Chancellor.