12 Comments
User's avatar
Jonathan Goldberg KC's avatar

What on earth is the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, Section 2 supposed to add? It is sheer waffle and when read carefully, would have permitted "Our Andy" to appoint a legally unqualified bus driver to the highest judicial office in the land.

Even Lord Sadiq Khan who was a bus driver, was later a solicitor I believe.

Barbara Rich's avatar

Khan’s father was a bus driver, not Khan himself

David E Ward's avatar

Appointing Ministers of State who appear to be unqualified for the job has become standard practice in recent years. Some them go on to make serious errors with profound consequences. As a medic I think of some SoS Health and Social care. No names …

Would you fly in a plane piloted by a lorry driver?

David Burrows's avatar

It is hard to believe it credible that a new lord chancellor should have no experience - none - as a lawyer...

Colin Weeden's avatar

It is a constitutional disgrace that this appointment has been made. Burnham has no respect for the law or the constitution, in fact he appears to hold both in contempt

Patrick Heren's avatar

Worse he is obviously ignorant

Graham Robinson's avatar

I am reminded of the Yes Minister script.

The Arts Minister is a complete philistine, the Industry Secretary is the idlest man in town, the Education Secretary is illiterate and the Employment Secretary is unemployable!

The days when the office of Lord Chancellor was held by a Judge (Simonds, Mackay) or a top KC (Hailsham, Irvine) are long gone

Nicholas O'Brien's avatar

I liked the literary allusion in the title to Christopher Isherwood's " Mr Norris changes Trains"

Joshua Rozenberg's avatar

Well spotted. I searched — without success -- for something appropriate that rhymed with "trains".

Joshua Rozenberg's avatar

Thought that didn't quite work.

David Holroyd's avatar

Sadly, even those qualified in the law do not always show good judgment in their dealings! I may be wrong but was not Lord Falconer involved in the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor with little to no consultation with the senior judiciary?