Nov 18 2009
An eerie opening of Parliament
We had all read the main contents of the Queen’s speech ages before the Queen was asked to tell us. The Labour benches contained many empty seats. Presumably some MPs clearly decided that as there will be no votes before next Wednesday there was no great point in turning up at all. They would get a better view on the TV if they were interested, and they already knew what was in the programme.
The government further undermined the solmnity and importance of the occasion by brieifing that the Speech was just a bit of politics designed to snare the Tories. Some of the bills are a caricature of spin politics.
They propose a Bill to halve the public deficit in the years ahead! Why does a government need to legislate to control its own spending? All it needs to do to curb the deficit is to spend less. It can set out in its budget documents how it will curb the deficit.
They propose a billl to control the rewards of bankers. As they own two of the biggest banks, why don’t they simply put in a pay policy to those banks that reflects their views on bankers’ pay? Why legislate to control your own pay policies?
They propose to make cluster munitions illegal. As the government is the only body in the UK that could possibly buy cluster munitions, why not just announce they are never go to buy any again? I am pleased to report there are no cluster munitions in Wokingham shops,and no demand for them.
The government has made the whole spectacle a non event, by too much spin, too much ill thought out legislation, and too much crude politics.
23 Responses to “An eerie opening of Parliament”
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
“I am pleased to report there are no cluster munitions in Wokingham shops”
I’ll not come to Wokingham when I want to stock up to defend myself against Labour party canvassers next year then. You don’t know if Reading has any do you?
I enjoyed your Tory Radio piece.
If there was a law against either “Bringing Parliament into disrepute” or “Wasting Parliamentary time” you would have an easy conviction against anybody on the Labour front bench.
There are millions of witnesses. The only problem would be in finding an impartial jury.
The case for four year parliaments is overwhelming.
re “As the government is the only body in the UK that could possibly buy cluster munitions” plenty of US forces on British soil, however I doubt they would take any notice of such announcements
We have had legislation for the sake of legislation. Heavyweight legislation that has sneaked through as amendments via statutory instruments. Less but better please. Simpler to understand = fewer loopholes and confusion.(Particularly in the realm of taxation and benefits.) The labyrinthian legislation this Government has excelled in implementing end up leaving people at the whim of a bureaucrat’s interpretation of said legislation rather than the actual law.
Many times it has been said that Parliament is sovereign and no Parliament can bind the hands of successive Parliaments. Should the Conservatives win the next election it would be time to put your money where your mouth is and prove it. I am sure there is much legislation that would be better off removed than amended.
To be fair to New Labour the Cluster Munitions Bill may be to prevent British armament manufacturers supplying them to overseas customers.
The Bill to control spending sounds perverse, unless they somehow think they are binding the hands of future governments; an equivalent to the US Balanced Budget Amendment (which has never been enacted.)
John
Yes I can confirm you are correct, there are no cluster bombs in Wokingham shops.
Went into Town myself today, and could not see any promotional material for them either.
But there is a shop selling Fireworks, is this near enough.
It will be interesting to see who will, and who will not qualify for free of charge Nursing Care at Home, since the qualification words (as I understand it) means only those who require “intense or advanced care” will qualify for this benefit.
Given the amount of hoops and medical assessments one has to pass through, to get catagorised for care already, I predict few will actually qualify for such aid.
I have some experience of the care system, as I had to contest 4 medical assessments made on my Mother, before it was eventually agreed what treatment and care she would be entitled to.
No I am not against the idea of giving those in need care, or indeed care for free if we can afford it, but if past performance is anything to go by, I simply cannot see that this promise is possible at the moment for the many who do need it.
My own thoughts are that this is just a headline to catch votes, from those who see their houses being sold to pay for Nursing Care.
The devil will be in the detail as it always is with Gordons ideas, and given that I do not think it will even be debated properly before the next election, the qualifying details will never be made public.
Only 1 in 1,000 elderly people who apply at present, get free Continuing Care which is funded by the NHS, and it would be impossible to care for these people at home, due to their dire medical condition, and the need for 24 hour medical care.
A rotten ending to a rotten parliament and government.
Well, the Queen looked pretty fed up having to read out all the guff she had been given. And what other behaviour do you expect of Labour MP’s than not to bother to turn up. They have demonstrated over the last twelve years their utter contempt for parliament and the democratic process. I would not be at all surprised if most them did not appreciate what exactly is the meaning of a Sovereign parliament. That is the people are Sovereign.
By the way I have just read your October ASI paper on the Credit Crunch. Excellent. Have you sent a copy to Vince Cable? He might learn something. Or there again he mighn’t. There is, of course, no point at all in sending it to Brown Darling.
Anthony Howard this morning opined that the State Opening was a sham and that he hoped that Prince Charles, when he becomes King will end the whole thing….
What strikes me is that parliament, with its empty benches, its increasingly fraudulent debates and power bypassing of an increasingly irrelevant chamber is becoming just like its master in Brussels/Strasburg: a rubber stamp.
Do you know what? The Conservatives, if they do win, are going to have a devil of a job restoring the teenage trashed house after the party of the last decade.
If I believed in a God of fire and brimstone bringing capacity, I would be on my knees, nay flat on my unseemly tum, praying for Him to rain it all upon the ghastly Government of the UK.
Even Tom Sharpe at his brilliant best could not produce such a caricature of where our country now finds itself.
There is another serious point here John. This government in particular, but all governments contain too many lawyers. Lawyers seem to think that every problem can be addressed by passing more laws- very advantageous – for lawyers. The fact they can’t implement the laws they have, or at least without the original intent being stood on its head, seems to elude m’ learned friends.
Perhaps we need a few years of implementing the laws we have got instead of more laws? Like catching lawbreakers and banging them up. Ah, but the prisons are already full to bursting.
Shouldn’t each new bill or regulation be required to contain an estimate of the population who will be found in breach of that law each year – sort of a public sector “business plan” – and declare what additional financial provision will be required to provide for the enforcement and subsequent incarceration of lawbreakers. No vote for the money, no pass law.
So unwilling is Gordon Brown to discuss the fiscal deficit, let alone do anything about it, it’s as if he lives on a different planet from the rest of us.
“As I was walking down the stair
I saw a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish that he would go away.”
… and the Kelly Report?
Yep, agree on all points but who cares? For years Brown and Blair have treated the populus as being politically illiterate so what’s new here? We all know there’s no time to enact the legislation and that this is simply the last vacuous act of a terminally ill Labour government. What we should all look to now is the next Queen’s speech, one that should lay the foundations for this country’s recovery, political, social and economic, after the wasteful years of Nu_Liebor.
Goodbye Gordon.
While the government tries to dent the Conservative lead in the polls the country continues to drift. This morning it has been revealed that last month the public finances deteriorated by a further £11.5 billion – A much greater figure than had been expected.
If one puts this fact alongside the inclusion in yesterday’s speech of a proposed bill to commit to halving the deficit within four years, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that while Brown is well aware of what needs to happen he has no idea as to how to make it so.
Having listened to some of the Queen’s Speech debate yesterday I was going to mention the bit about separating the “executive” (PM and Cabinet), from the “legislature” (Commons and Lords). But; I think I am flogging a dead one there; even on this site. So I will digress.
The following is the result of a phone call with a JR fan yesterday. I mentioned in a previous post, a value for UK welfare spending on a COFOG basis. This is a UN adopted, OECD derived method of classifying government spending by FUNCTION, not economic category. (Classification of Functions of Government).
The trouble with it is, it is relatively easy to understand by lay people; and, no government wants its spending to be easily understood; even by its MPs. Before you know it, little people will be asking questions of why we spend more on this and that than some other country. COFOG has currently, ten basic “functions” and a few dozen sub-functions.
UK COFOG data now turns up in PESA and not in the BLUE BOOK as you might expect. It made a brief appearance in the latter in 2006 I think.
To cut a long phone call short, have a look at the following. PESA 2009 chapter 4 and 5; particularly table 5.2 of chap 5. THIS IS WHERE YOU GET YOUR BLUE PENCIL OUT. By my reckoning, you have got to chop about £120 billion out of this table.
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pesa_180609.pdf
Then to really make your day, have a look at chapter 11 of the BLUE BOOK. Particularly table 11.1. “Taxes paid by UK residents to general government and the European Union”. You will probably need a blood red pencil for this one.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_economy/BB09.pdf
PS. Acorn accepts no responsibility for any damage the reader may cause to persons or property as a result of reading the above.
According to your colleague Dan Hannan, 84% of parliament’s business comes from the EU. Does that explain the Queens Speech contents then? Thought not.
“They propose to make cluster munitions illegal. As the government is the only body in the UK that could possibly buy cluster munitions, why not just announce they are never go to buy any again? I am pleased to report there are no cluster munitions in Wokingham shops,and no demand for them.”
Indeed my personal feelings about clustered munitions are a little mixed. Having heard from some who feel they only live and breathe today, as a result of a well aimed attack from an heroically low flying RAF delivery, of the very same weapon. The problem of course not being their deadly nature, but the difficulty is clearing away the failed unexploded bombs, before some innocent person is caught unaware by one.
However I agree Labour are having a laff, as it is them alone, at this moment, and if only for a little longer who are the object of the law. Not the poor confused public who are baffled, It seems by Labours self destructive announcements.
My concern today is the threat made it seems by Labour to end DLA for the older disabled person. In my opinion it would make better sense to introduce means testing into this essential benefit. The fact is, that it was the Labour government that extended this benefit to the over 65’s in the first place.
As it is I am put in good heart by our great parties immediate and unqualified outrage at the very notion, that we would fail those who’s care is most certainly our civic duty.
As it is DLA is not a benefit that many dishonest people get, as it has safeguards built in. Without this benefit it is hard to see how many people would manage to make ends meet. In many cases it would be certain that fewer careers would be able to support at home, as they would have to ensure that the bills get paid. Careers are already a much put upon group, and such an additional burden would likely end in a far larger bill being suffered by our increasingly hard pressed NHS.
Very good post that explains.in few words. Blogging at its best . Thank you.
There were 13 bills in the Queens speach. I believe there are only 28 days for the commons to sit if there is an election in March and 41 days if the election is in May. If the commons sites for 4 days a week that is somewhere between 7 and 10 weeks sitting time.
Allowing for questions (if they are answered) and statements, that means you will have to average passing close on 2 bills a week!! Before we have any additional legislation on issues such as the Kelly report.
This speach shows why the public are losing interest in politics. It was supposed to be a moment for the goverment to reach out and show that it can make a difference in the short time it has left. Instead it has chosen to play games, failing to address the real issues the goverment can deal with, the budget deficit and expenses.
This speach should go down in history as the moment this goverment finally admitted it had lost the will to govern and put self preservation at the hart of its program
dear john,
i don’t like to remind you of wales, but i reckon parliament (and the european one in strasbourg or brussels or wherever it is depending on the movements of the moon) could be improved by having its powers limited to those held by the welsh assembly. politicians appear to measure their egos by the amount of legislation they can get on to the statute book. however, there is little evidence that our country’s problems are any closer to being solved by this never ending tide of legislative diarrhea.
bizarrely, the welsh assembly is quite popular as the members are forced to focus on how they can run wales’s public services and spend the money most efficiently ( we can dispute whether they do a good job!) rather than dreaming up new laws or in the case of the queen’s speech using her maj to read out what was little more than a ‘party political broadcast on behalf of the labour party’.