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

How have things come to this sad and dangerous pass? Why is it possible to introduce major changes to the UK system of government without full public discussion and without the clear majorities in favour of change required for constitutional amendments in most other countries?

One of the most effective undercover agents of constitutional revolution is a small lobby of civil servants, headed by the Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell and academics and journalists such as Robert Hazell of UCL, and Peter Riddell, formerly political editor of The Times. Their project is being significantly helped by the apparently bottomless pockets of the Labour peer David Sainsbury, a minister in Tony Blair's government, who has so far sunk £15 million into the enterprise via the think-tank, the Institute for Government. Another key player is the Constitution Unit at UCL, also funded in its early days by a Sainsbury-backed trust.

O'Donnell is known throughout Whitehall by his initials — GOD. One might call his reform group the GOD Squad.

The GOD Squad's effectiveness has stemmed from their "below the radar" character. The core objective of most of them is to destroy Britain's two-party system. This is something in the obvious interests of the Liberal Democrats, though some centrist politicians in each of the main parties have lent their support. The arrangements agreed for the Coalition government provide the opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to drive forward further changes which may radically alter the British political system in their favour. Vital components of the Civil Service and other parts of the Establishment have had close links with constitutional reform lobbies; and Civil Service action helped to introduce innovations which significantly assisted the Liberal Democrats in the inter-party negotiations after last year's general election.

A prime example of the persistent stealth attacks on the British constitution was the launch by O'Donnell in February 2010 of a preliminary chapter of a so-called Cabinet Manual. This was rushed out in anticipation of the forthcoming general election. The full draft was published months later in December 2010. Its legitimacy has been the subject of unusual criticism within a series of parliamentary select committees.  

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.