And another thing…

AT TODAY’s Business Questions in the Commons, Shadow Leader of the House, Alan Duncan, asked for:

A debate on moral authority so that this house can help establish a code of modern manners for privacy, humour and comment which can be practiced and agreed by everyone in place of the current chaos which provokes animosity and condemnation where it all could be so much better handled.

Huh? “…that this house can help establish a code of modern manners for privacy, humour and comment”?

Seriously?

Jumping on a bandwagon is one thing; hijacking it and driving off in a completely new direction is another thing altogether. Is there anyone out there, anyone at all, who would subject themselves to “a code of modern manners for privacy, humour and comment” established by the House of Commons?

Big Brother is listening to your jokes

As for the “current chaos”, what on earth is he complaining about? “Chaos” is what happens when individuals exercise their right to express themselves in a way that is humorous, at least to some; never to all. Yes, sometimes that means people will be offended (see the Carol Thatcher and the Jonathan Ross “controversies”), but that’s an inevitable consequence of free speech. Monty Python was offensive to some, as was Punch, as is Private Eye, Have I Got News For You, Rory Bremner… do I need to go on?

God save us from politicians who think they’re qualified to decide what we should and should not laugh at. And before you say anything, yes, I know it would never happen, I know that as I write this, AD is probably issuing a “clarification” explaining that he didn’t mean what he said.

But for a very intelligent politician, he has made a very stupid mistake by suggesting such a ludicrous gimmick in his lame attempt to exploit the public’s irritation at the behaviour of comedians and other clebrities.

But at least no Tory can ever again accuse Labour of attempting to impose “thought control”.

A RULE about reshuffles is that, whether in government or in opposition, they tend to be initially welcomed by the media. If doubts emerge, it is only in the aftermath, 24-48 hours later.

So the Tories have done well so far to dominate the political headlines on the day a second tranche of cash is to be shoveled into the black hole that is our banking system. And there are some interesting and intelligent moves: Grayling has done well in both his recent positions – transport and DWP – and it will be intersting to see how effective his rottweiller approach will be at Home Affairs.

Theresa May will probably be glad to have her second stint as Shadow Leader of the House finally end. Alan Duncan will enjoy his weekly jousts with Harriet Harman during Business Questios on Thursday mornings. As Coffee House rightly says this afternoon, Dominic Grieve should probably not have been given Shadow Home Secretary last summer when David Davis resigned, and he may well be more suited to Shadow Justice Secretary.

Two negative points, though: I share the disappointment of the business community and a sizeable number of Tory MPs that Cameron has not shifted Theresa Villiers out of transport (though I accept that would have been difficult following a week when he gave her such unambiguous support in her campaign against economic growth Heathrow’s third runway).

And then there’s the DD question. Having accepted the argument for bringing back at least one of the so-called Big Beasts, what is Cameron’s reason for not bringing back David Davis, especially after his tacit admission today that DD’s replacement has not performed well?

Having won the argument for Clarke’s return, DD’s supporters are unlikely to allow the prospect of his eventual return to the front bench disappear from the headlines or from Tory blogs.