There are some good things to be said about our current government, not many but some. One of them is our brand new Lord Chancellor, Michael Gove. The fact that 'Dim Dave' moved him from the post of Education Secretary before the election because it was felt he had upset what is known as 'the blob', that vast, unyielding conglomeration of teachers' unions, local authorities and the Education Ministry itself, was yet another example of the PM's poor judgment. The undoubted fact was that Gove had proved himself to be the most able Education Minister for decades. Of course, fighting his way through the stodgy, cloying resistance of 'the blob' meant that he had only accomplished part of his strategic aim and Dave's cowardice - he thought Gove had upset too many people near to an election - means that there is much still to do in our 'edukashun serviss'! The somewhat 'moo-like' lady who was given Gove's old job does not fill me with enthusiasm but perhaps now that she can operate without the wet blankets of the il-Lib-non-Dems smothering her every action she will suddenly discover the fact that she's a Tory.
Anyway, the good news is that Michael Gove has been given a new job, albeit, one of even greater difficulty than dealing with the wet semi-socialists he had to face in the weird world of education. As Lord Chancellor he has the responsibility for our justice system. 'The blob' is a pushover compared to the greasy, viscous, self-replicating, amorphous mass that is the judiciary and all their hangers-on. Now, here I pause and make a confession, I am not too well up when it comes to lawyers and judges. Happily, I have had virtually no dealings with them. Even so, I suspect that they are even worse than they appear to be from general knowledge. I also suspect that the entire court system is a huge 'jobs and perks for the boys (and gals) racket' which wastes an inordinate amount of time - time, of course, being chargeable for lawyers, so that's alright then!
On the other hand, I have a naïf's faith in our jury system despite knowing that a goodly percentage of jurymen and women are as thick as planks! Thus, I view with some suspicion the ideas of Mr. Rupert Myers in The Telegraph who suggest that juries should be cut and judges left to judge. He may be right and such a system of, in effect, examining judges may cut costs enormously but it all rather smacks of the French system which I very much doubt is any cheaper or more effective than ours.
But as I say, I really do not know anywhere near enough about our legal system to have a strong opinion except that I just know - don't ask me how! - that it could be done quicker and cheaper than the cosy, mutual back-scratching system we have today. Mr. Gove appears ready to take on the lawyers and I for one wish him well.
Comments