Hoist by his own petard

Stepney

Through the passing of the Flood and Water Management Bill make it a statutory duty for all Councils in this country to make sure that there are no puddles exceeding 3 square metres in surface area and to make it an offence punishable by the full force of the law for the land within the council area to exceed the average rainfall expected for that area.
Through the Education Rights Bill make it impossible for any child to be corrected whether by verbal, written or electronic communication; for every child to be offered a raft of qualifications by application and for every child to have the opportunity to make a terrific job of their lives. The teachers, parents and siblings of any child who doesn't become really happy, wealthy and successful in later life will be subject to the full force of the law.

My Government has also made provision for another Queen's speech next week once we've cleared this little lot up on Friday morning.

Nicholas

Why a law to force government to halve debt in 4 years? Why 4 years? Have you media hacks asked the national socialists that question yet?

Because it will be about a year from an election after the Tories first term in office that is why. And that is all.

Shameful. You should be screaming it from the rooftops that this lousy, nasty gang is nothing about government and all about defeating the opposition and holding on rto political power. After all, this wretched gang of cheats, charlatans and traitors spent a good part of the last half of the 20th Century collaborating with the KGB, the secret service of a hostile nation, to help them do just that.

When are they going to get the pillorying they really deserve?

Martyn Rowe

Constructing water-tight bills to improve the state of country is secondary in Brown's world. Why concentrate on that when he can spend all his time shouting at Cameron for his backtracking over the EU Treaty.

Brown is hopeless. Yesterday just further proved how shallow he is.

And for any Labour MP who wants to argue the point that, despite everything, Brown's heart is in the right place; he cares; his values are important blah blah.... The they should consider the 10p tax removal. That plan was purely political. It hit the poorest hardest in a bid to shore up middle class votes. And it was all Brown's idea. Therefore, he either hopelessly messed up or cunningly eshewed the poor in a bid for votes and power.

I'd suspect his motive was the second one.

And that's the sort of person he is. Not steeped in values or deep or contemplative. But instead tribal, spiteful and driven purely by the obtainment of power, by any means.

Yesterdays list of never-to-be bills was just another stage showing of his politicking and future dividing lines, demonstrating his lack of regard for the now; for what really matters. Ironically, Blair used his last days as PM to drive through big, important ideas (he worked hard with Northern Ireland for instance). Brown would never be so brave.

I bet the Labour party wishes it has Blair now.

R

Every time since he became PM that Brown has attempted to pull a clever trick and wrong-foot or triangulate the Tories, it has rebounded damagingly to his discredit: he is the Wile E. Coyote of politics.

As he appears to have used most of Queen's Speech to attempt this on a massive scale, I expect a further series of humiliations and U-turns as his Acme dynamite blows up in his face.

Publius

"I can even see that if you’re that way inclined, which I'm not..."

We know which way inclined you are, Mr Blackburn. That's the problem. You just don't get it. Repeatedly.

"unlikely to rival the 1911 Parliament Act"

One of the greatest acts of constitutional sabotage of the century. And of course we will look to what's left of the HOL to stop this irresponsible government from causing more havoc.

Minnie Ovens

"I can even see that Harman’s Equality Bill has something to commend it."

Dear oh dear.
The reason why this country has ripped itself to shreds is that too little thinking has been done as to the really deep cause/affect of potential Laws.
While Mr Blackburn disassociates himself, somewhat disingenuously, it should be noted that Ms Harman, either through stupidity, misdirected ambition or bloody malevolence for her own class, rarely enacts something which does not rip our social structure apart even further.

Sir Graphus

Quite right, Nicholas. The govt has taken to enshrining Labour policy in law. This is not the first.

David Ossitt

David Blackburn.

“I can even see that if you’re that way inclined, which I’m not, Harman’s Equality Bill has something to commend it.”

It has nothing to commend it; unless you are an out and out misandrist, a hater of fair play and all things English.

Harman has evil intent.

Naomi Muse

""We're busy doin' nothin' working the whole day through, trying to find lots of things not to do....""

And, the jaw dropping showed in its body language that gordo's boys and gals had forgotten about legislating for their own expenses.

Tut, tut...

There may be some things the next government needs to repeal immediately it gets in.

Leo McKinstry

How on earth can it be claimed that Harriet Harman's Equality Bill might have "something to commend it"? It represents a grotesque, intrusive and bureaucratic extension of state power. Harman herself has called it "socialism in one clause" and, in the tones of a true ideologue, had said it will bring about "a new social order." The Bill's very title is Orwellian in its adhesion to double-think. As with the slogans of the party in 1984 - "war is peace", "slavery is freedom" - Harman now tells us that "discrimination is equality." What her bill institutes for the first time in British law is a requirement for employers to directly discriminate in favour of ethnic minorities and women, a British version of US affirmitive action. So we now have favouritism on the grounds of skin colour or gender elevated into a principle of governance. Her Bill also introduces a system of contract compliance, whereby firms cannot bid for public sector work unless they prove their commitment to promoting diversity or women's rights. Again, this provides tremendous scope for state bullying. Contract compliance is a throwback to the old days of the Loony Left in local government, epitomised by the GLC. Now, under Harman, it is to be made into Labour's flaship measure of the autumn. It is tragic that so many people have not seen through this authoritarianism.

David Ossitt

Minnie Ovens.

"or bloody malevolence for her own class"

Malevolence; is in her every thought and in her every deed.

Roger Davies

Brown has evil intent and he wishes the populace to be punished for even considering voting Tory. Brown has no moral compass he is a vile spiteful and evil man who will do everything in his power to give an incomming Tory Gov. a very hard time.

peter

Can't you just see the look of terror on the face the parent(s) faced with an Order. It's a joke, like the rest of the speech. We wouldn't need flood and water laws if that tub of lard hadn't built countless homes in the wrong places.

Brown and his shambolic government are for the scrap heap and that blissful day next year cannot come soon enough. We don't know what we will get but it just cannot be worse - can it?

Leo McKinstry

Another grim aspect of this Bill is Harriet Harman's colossal hypocrisy. For the last twelve years, she has been a key member of a Labour Government that has has deliberately promoted the growth of militant Islam within Britain. As we see all around us across the globe, there is no greater engine for inequality and the oppression of women that the "religion of peace." Harman and her gang have colluded with the spread of Sharia Law in Britain, turning Muslim women into second-class citizens, and have also turned a blind eye to forced marriages, domestic violence and the exploitation of children. In a revealing passage in his diaries, Chris Mullin records that "we've barely touched the rackets that surround bogus marriages." But he admits that Labour will take no action, not only because "we are terrified of a huge cry of racism" but also because at least 20 Labour seats "depend on Asian votes." That was written in 2004, so the figure has probably trebled by now. The misogyny and Harman's hypocrisy go on. Which candidate for Labour's Deputy Leadership did Muslim Friends of Labour decide to support with a £5000 donation? Harriet Harman, of course.

Watt Tyler

@Nicholas

I was thinking about the proposed law to halve debt in 4 years. It seemed odd. Why waste time putting that law on the statute books? Why not just take the necessary action in government?

After all, the Labour commentators were saying "we don't need a law enshrining the changes proposed by Kelly, we'll just enact them."

Any slightly conscious human being, not least a journalist, should be able to tell from this that the unecessary law is about projecting Labours agenda into the future. I don't know the detail as yet to understand exactly in what way. However, I have heard the journalists talk glibly of Labour setting traps for the next government. I don't understand why, if they understand this, do they choose to keep us in ignorance rather than help us with our understanding about what sort of government we have a right to expect, and why they don't whip up some righteous anger? I can only suppose that they are either ignorant after all, or short of any expectation, or they prosper too much from the status quo.

I know that there is criticism in Blackburns article, but as you say, the media should be all over the history of these charcters, and should be analysing the motivation behind the last 12 years. Neathergate was an opportunity, which they all to obviously, in their embarrassed way, declined to take. In my mind, there is not one worthy journalist in the land.

Watt Tyler

Amendment to my last post - not a worthy journalist in the land? With the exception of Melanie Phillips, of course!

peter

I overlooked the commdent about the Equality Bill. The only way to be "inclined" towards it would be if you were severely "bent" and leaning at a steep angle in the direction of the Big Brother state.

Equality does not exist in a "free" society although this lot have had a fair crack of imposing it for the last 12 years.

Anne Wotana Kaye

I'm obviously very simple and must be excused if I cannot understand what's going on. Brown's government is ranting on about providing home care for all the elderly who require it. An excellent idea, because probably only the mentally ill or desperate would enjoy the thought of leaving their own residence and enter that oxymoron, the dreaded care home. Cameron, the 'Blue Blair' is also for the idea. Great! Now for the part simple little me cannot crack. First, where is the money coming from? OK, so I will leave that question to the economists who are so better at fiddling the books than I will ever be. The second question is far more complex. Who will do the caring, and where will the carers come from? I can hardly see the unemployed suddenly throwing up their benefits to help somebody else's granny or grandad into a clean pair of knickers. Neither can I see a queue of unemployed call centre and bank staff waiting to take on this job. So, once again I imagine Britain will rely on foreign labour. How will this equate with the promises to cut down on this source of cheap and ready labour? Anybody who can suggest an answer, please let us all know. Thanks.

Liz Brown

Couldn't happen to a more deserving chap

Moraymint

Roger Davies

Yup.

David Blackburn

Nicholas, Publius, Minnie Ovens, David Ossit, Leo McKinstry and Peter,

There is a huge difference between recognising the vailidity of an argument and agreeing with an agenda.

mac

Nicholas: "
When are they going to get the pillorying they really deserve?"

I'm resigned to the MSM's blindness to the socialists' utter mendacity and ineptitude continuing. And worse, as a Tory government struggles to correct yet another economic shambles wrought by marxists, it's only a matter of time before the hypocrite legion of fellow travellers in the MSM and academe revise history to explain how far-sighted was Brown, how heroic was Harman, how brilliant was Mandelson, how dedicated was Straw and how simply wonderful life would have been if only a Miliband or a Balls had succeeded Brown. Sick bag, please.

Leo McKinstry

Last comment on this subject from me, I promise. But I don't recognise the intellectual validity of the argument for Harriet Harman's Bill. How can institutionalised discrimination in favour of minorities and women and against men be described "equality"?

peter

David - it is the validity of the argument I am questioning.

Tiberius

I think, David, many of us are somewhat agitated by the Speccie's willingness to treat with the New Labour creed.

Nazism, fascism, Islamism, and communism may be part of the premier league of despised ideologies, but when you look at the history of New Labour's "achievements", you wonder just how many divisions below the "cream" they are.

David Blackburn

Leo McKinstry,

That's why I don't agree with Harman's argument, but that doesn't render her argument invalid.

Publius

"That's why I don't agree with Harman's argument, but that doesn't render her argument invalid."

-- Mr Blackburn. You're in a hole. You really ought to stop digging.

denis cooper

So now we all agree that Brown is crap as a Prime Minister.

It's taken a lot more time than it should for the media to come round to realising this and openly saying it; now it seems the media can't say it often enough.

Some of us watched him scurrying off to Brussels shortly after the 1997 election, only to be told that he couldn't fulfill the Labour election pledge to remove VAT from domestic fuel but would be allowed to cut it to 5% in exchange for the British government getting the Amsterdam Treaty through Parliament; and some of us listened to his first budget in the summer of 1997, saw the flaws in what he was proposing - not least, with regard to ACT, in effect removing tax relief on the dividends received by pension funds - and questioned then whether he was fit to hold high office.

But now we all agree that this other bloke, Cameron, should be Prime Minister instead, even though there's nothing about him which obviously qualifies him for that position, and quite a few things which should disqualify him.

This is what strikes me very forcibly - there are 60-odd million of us, say 40-odd million excluding those who are too young or too old or too ill, and yet out of that pool of 40-odd million the best choice we can come up with for our national leader is either Brown, or Cameron.

There's obviously something wrong here, and maybe I could hint at what I think is the real problem - that the actual process of choosing our leader is controlled by two (or three) self-interested, deceitful, unpatriotic and undemocratic political gangs, each of them in turn controlled by at most a few score people, which automatically and quite intentionally excludes 99% plus of the population from even getting into Parliament, let alone becoming Prime Minister.

David Blackburn

Publius,

I don't how I can be clearer, but one last go. I loathe Harman's agenda and have written against it consistently, but that does not mean that her argument is logically invalid.

Maintaining that the act of recognising the possible attractions of a proposition, in order to oppose it, in fact indicates that the opponent is in agreement with the proposition, now that's logically invalid.

Anne Wotana Kaye

Please - can anybody let me know how the home carers for the elderly are being financed? I'm really interested.

Publius

Mr Blackburn writes:
"...but that does not mean that her argument is logically invalid."

-- Look, Mr Blackburn, there is no argument that you have cited that can be examined for its logical validity. It's a complete red herring.

-- I suspect what you initially meant is that, somehow or other, in your mind, "equality" is a good thing, and now you are confusing the question of whether Harman's lunatic policies might further that ridiculous political bludgeon-word of a goal with this nonsense about logical validity.

-- If not, then perhaps you'd like to explain what the logical argument is, and then we can examine it for its validity.

David Blackburn

Publius,

Equality is a worthwhile goal; it is fundemental to British values, freedoms and law. If you don't believe me read the Bill of Rights, and the Reform acts emancipating men and women - the principle is clear.

Inequality must be challenged, not least because it's socially divisive and encourages economic regression. The question is how to achieve it. Can it be through legislation alone? Obviously not. Equality cannot not be imposed via illogical and counter productive 'positive discrimination', that ultimate contradiction in terms. It has to be secured through individual aspiration opertaing within law that is fair ie. one that does not accept a paygap for example.

So, although I think Harman's end point is not altogether bad her means of reaching it and her strident feminist language are unacceptable and should be resisted. In fact, they will almost certainly secure the failure of forging a society that is equal in law and opportunity, in other words meritocratic.

Is that clear?

Publius

Mr Blackburn. Yes, that is exactly what I thought your view was.

Publius

Mr Blackburn, you will I hope be aware that "meritocracy" and "equality" are contradictory.

You might also bear in mind that there is nothing good or just in treating unequal people equally, or equal people unequally. It is a question of how you judge -- which, I suspect, you don't bother to do. Instead you take on board the meaningless lefty proposition that "everyone is equal" and then treat any lack of equality as evidence of injustice and "discrimination".

David Blackburn

Publius,

Equality concerns opportunity. Another gripe with Harman and ultra-feminism is that they limiting this debate to discrimination in the workplace. The debate should focus on aspiration, encompassing social mobility, education and so forth.

Equal opportunity enables meritocracy, an order of outcomes and individual application, to operate without discrimination and hindrance. I know you are suspicious of the term, and rightly so because it so often misapplied, but this argument does reduce to the broad question of what progressive politics should concern. Is it about One Nation values of individual aspiration with the help of the state when needed? Individual aspiration without the state? Or the state dictating and legislating/interfering/discriminating to socially engineer? I favour the former option; you, I suspect, favour the middle option; Harman favours the latter. With all due respect, and assuming that my suspicion is correct, I think recent history and current social stagnation disproves your thesis as much as hers, though both of your arguments are valid.

Nicholas

"There is a huge difference between recognising the vailidity of an argument and agreeing with an agenda."

You've lost me there I'm afraid. New Labour seem to have multiple agendas so could you please explain which one(s) you agree with?

Marcher Baron

Frankly, if the incoming government tabled a law that would repeal ALL the legislation that Labour has brought in since 1997 I, for one, would give a resounding three cheers.

Michael Booth

Equality before the law is a British value. Social equality is a value of the Labour Party. There is a difference.

mac

Michael Booth: "There is a difference".

There is indeed, and the inevitable cost of deliberately engineering it is a ruinously trashed economy. Again.

Publius

Mr Blackburn:
"you, I suspect, favour the middle option"

--Incorrect, as it happens. But a convenient straw man (as in Blackburn = moderate and reasonable; Publius = libertarian nutcase).

Chuck Unsworth

I'm sorry, I simply don't understand. WTF is an 'agenda' - apart from a list of topics for a meeting, that is?