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”.