With Britain in the midst of an agricultural crisis, and with the current electoral mandate about to expire, it may seem perhaps a little hasty and reckless for the government to start abolishing constitutional Acts. The Bill to prohibit the clergy from taking formal posts in the Commons was vital to separation of power and it appears to have gone with barely a whimper, certainly not a bang. Not as famous as the Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta, it has not come under much scrutiny, and many textbooks dont even mention it.
The increasing influence of christianity in modern Britain (of any denomination- lets not be biased!) is now formalised; it gives Blair's own personal creed more influence, along with the monarchy (as head of the Church of England) and also the Vatican. With the Crown assuming more power in the Commonwealth (with the assistance of the IMF and World Bank), the stage may be set for a type of 'neo-absolutism' to emerge from our current neo-capitalism, or whatever you want to call it.
Blatantly hurrying through such legislation in order to help an approaching by-election, Labour have justified this, as always, as a piece of 'modernization'. Fine. Thats alright then. Except that such a precendent endangers any other Acts of similar vintage. Imagine the outcry if George Bush Jnr declared the USA constitution to be similarly outdated, and moved to join the Commonwealth; and what of the Reform Bills?
When the question of when, if ever, Britain came to be a modern democracy, the usual date is considered to be the Reform Bill of 1832, when the electoral franchise was considerably expanded (a later Bill followed in 1867 when it was clear that Chartism was not about to rise up again).
The current Labour regime is incremental in approach: try something and then extend it if it works, and this restoration of clerical privileges may, in spirit, be an encroachment upon the Reform Bills and the first stage in the abolition of democracy; certainly with changes at this rate, possession of a copy of Bagehot may be an act of treason in the near future.
to make such a fundamental change at such a difficult time for the population (precisely while they're distracted with more immediate concerns), and with an expiring mandate, does indeed srike one as being rather similar to the behaviour of Charles I or George III, both of whom were off their heads in diverse ways. Ha ha ha.

The piecemeal laws that pretend to be a constitution are unsatisfactory, sometimes useless, as we know. But that does not make them irrelevant, and attacks upon them should be challenged. Ignored in most of the media, the Daily Telegraph has some coverage today. Presumably they'll be delighted with the change.