The Queens speech is set to be one that Her Majesty will have to read through clenched teeth. Leaving aside the fact that there are only seventy days left in the Parliamentary session before it is prorogued, the fact is that the "gracious speech" is set to contain yet more evidence of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of New Labour.
We are told that the government will introduce legislation to guarantee the right to a good education and to guarantee- with legal force behind it- that the deficit will be reduced.
Could it be that ,like some kind of wavering alcoholic, the government doubts its own commitment to existing policies? In any event how can any government leaving binding commitments to its successors? The Parliament is sovereign and may change laws at any time as it sees fit.
The fact is that the government knows that the public no longer- if it ever did- believes that it can fulfil its promises, and by trying to back its promises with the force of law it rather gives the game away, for it shows that the government itself recognises this.
It is, however, a travesty that the government resorts to force of legal decree when it knows that the issues are not simply a matter of black and white. Imposing new legislation will, at best, distort the policies they are trying to get through. It is simply trying to railroad things that should always be a matter of common commitment and ultimately of general consensus. Using the legal process where it is not need causes more harm than good.
These are also the actions of a bully that resorts to force when it fails to persuade.
More and more I think that there should be a wholesale review of legislation at the earliest opportunity with a view to the abolition of the obsolete, intrusive, and badly thought out legislation that has been put onto the statute book without even a proper vote in Parliament.
The government currently controls parliament- it is time that it was the other way around.
We are told that the government will introduce legislation to guarantee the right to a good education and to guarantee- with legal force behind it- that the deficit will be reduced.
Could it be that ,like some kind of wavering alcoholic, the government doubts its own commitment to existing policies? In any event how can any government leaving binding commitments to its successors? The Parliament is sovereign and may change laws at any time as it sees fit.
The fact is that the government knows that the public no longer- if it ever did- believes that it can fulfil its promises, and by trying to back its promises with the force of law it rather gives the game away, for it shows that the government itself recognises this.
It is, however, a travesty that the government resorts to force of legal decree when it knows that the issues are not simply a matter of black and white. Imposing new legislation will, at best, distort the policies they are trying to get through. It is simply trying to railroad things that should always be a matter of common commitment and ultimately of general consensus. Using the legal process where it is not need causes more harm than good.
These are also the actions of a bully that resorts to force when it fails to persuade.
More and more I think that there should be a wholesale review of legislation at the earliest opportunity with a view to the abolition of the obsolete, intrusive, and badly thought out legislation that has been put onto the statute book without even a proper vote in Parliament.
The government currently controls parliament- it is time that it was the other way around.
Comments
There have been four pacts with and as you will probably go for a fifth if it suits maybe its time to tone down the criticism ?