Yesterday I watched the Queen’s Speech – where the government lays out its plans for the new session of Parliament.
I have always had mixed feelings about this event. I like the colour and ritual, but I do not like the fact that a person (the Queen) has to read out a speech full of plans that they may not agree with, and I do not like the fact that the speech is often full of lies and the plans are often very bad.
Yesterday’s speech was indeed a mixture of lies and bad plans. For example, the government will continue its policy of ‘sound finance’ (in reality there is a vast government spending deficit, and there is also a vast credit money bubble produced from the ‘independent’ Bank of England).
There are to be about 30 new bills to be presented to Parliament, mostly on subjects that the government has legislated on often before. It is like watching the latter days of a Greek city state, or the decline of the Roman Empire – every problem needs a ‘new law’ and if this measure does not work (or makes things worse) then there is another measure and another. Some of the new measures are nasty (such as yet another effort to get rid of trial by jury in fraud cases), but many are just silly and have been done before.
The leader of the Liberal Democrat Party (‘Ming’ Campbell) was correct when he said that the Labour party had come into office saying “education, education, education” but had followed a policy (on all matters) of “legislation, legislation, legislation” with hundreds of new statutes and thousands of Statutory Instruments (measures that have the force of law, but are put in place by Ministers and Civil Servants rather than Parliament) being created since 1997.
Of course Sir ‘Ming’ did not point to the source of a lot of the regulations the government has put in place (the European Union), and he tried (as ‘progressive’ politicians tend to try to do) to be anti C02 emissions and anti-atomic power at the same time – but he had made a good basic point. Passing laws does not solve problems, indeed it often makes them worse or creates different (and worse) problems.
Before anyone points it out, I fully accept that things were much the same under the last Conservative party government (that of John Major).
I’ve always had a wicked desire for a microphone to pick up Her Majesty muttering under her breath, “…and that’s a bloody stupid idea…”
I think that’s Phil the Greek you’d be picking up there.
Does anyone have figures on money expansion?
Is a government deficit a problem?
Paul Marks writes:
“…I do not like the fact that a person (the Queen) has to read out a speech full of plans that they may not agree with…”
Or when it is written in a foreign language. I shall never forget the year when Her Majesty was obliged to read aloud the words. ‘My government have decided….’
Some ill-educated ZaNuLabour hack should have been sent to the Tower for that!
Even according to official stats (which Mr Brown tries to rig by not including such things as Railtrack spending and P.F.I. project spending as government spending and by not including his so called “Tax Credits” as the welfare benefits that they are) the government deficit is well above 3% of output.
As for the money supply – broad money (M3) is expanding at over 14% last time I checked (the money supply has been exploding for ages – hence the real estate and stock market bubbles).
“We have ended the economics of boom and bust”.
Wait and see.
Passing laws is like wind, often of temporary impact and no lasting effect.
John K,
I almost made a comment about that. I think it’s one of the fe occasions upon which HRH Duke of Edinburgh is on his best. Cheers!
One of the reasons why parties should not be tax-funded is that they should be short of money. This way they won’t have the money to manage a media agenda as they did in the last election, where journos turned up to be told the day’s agenda by the parties, listened to the slogans, were shown the posters and saw the election broadcasts – all of which they which then merely reported, lies and all. They were given very little chance to ask their own questions or to differ from the parties on what the real issues were.
‘Sound finance’ is one of these lies. No reasonable person who has looked at what is going on would accept that the government has implemented ‘sound finance’, yet when they make this claim they are rarely challenged. But the media have got out of the habit of deciding for themselves what is important or questioning what is true, so they just report what the parties want to say.
Melanie Phillip’s reprinted the reply to the Queen’s speech by Paul Goodman (con. Wycombe). It indicates a sharp awareness of Islamism by at least one MP. It’s here(Link).
David
Yes David.
And the link to Saddam’s atomic weapons activities was good to.
Even leaving aside the movement of vast amounts of stuff to Syria, the documents captured in Iraq proved that Saddam had not given up his efforts to build atomic bombs. But whilst the New York Times did not deny the truth of these documents it (and the rest of the media, even Fox) ran the story as evil Republicans have published documents that would help people build atomic bombs (as if such information was not on the internet already). The real story (that Saddam was guilty) was kept away from the public.
It was much the same when a few chemical weapons that Saddam had not had time to either destroy or move even with the super slow time table of the build up to war (super slow due to Mr Blair) were found – only Fox reported it (back in the summer).
So the public are left thinking that claims of W.M.D.s were just a pack of lies.