Lord Irvine has spoken of the “insensitive, high-handed and incoherent” manner in which Tony Blair abolished the thousand year-old office of Lord Chancellor in 2003.
The Guardian reports that Irvine was told of the proposal to replace the office with that of Secretary of State for Justice only a matter of days before it happened:
In the ensuing confrontation with Blair, Irvine writes, “I asked him how a decision of this magnitude could be made without prior consultation with me, the judiciary … and the palace. The prime minister appeared mystified and said that these changes always had to be carried into effect in a way that precluded such discussion because of the risk of leaks.
“I was surprised he thought the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor was of the same order as any machinery of government changes.”
I have to say that I am surprised that Irvine was surprised. Throughout his tenure of office, Blair repeatedly displayed an ignorance of, or indifference to, the British constitutional settlement that was truly breathtaking. His half-baked reform of the House of Lords, for example, has left us with a constitutional dog’s breakfast that will take years to clear up.
So far as Blair was concerned, the ancient and constitutionally pivotal office of Lord High Chancellor was probably of no greater significance than that of Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government.



