Fisking Janet...

Over at the daily Telegraph, Janet Daley has a typically looney well thought out critique of Michael Gove's "free school" bill which is currently being rushed through Parliament with very little scrutiny.

Among Ms Daley's insights is the thought that...

"...the condition of Britain's state schooling is pretty much on a par as a national peril with a campaign of dirty bombs."

A summary of Janet's thinking:

Gove is apparently proposing a “..revolution in state schooling...” the significance of which “.... is both substantial and symbolic ..“.  This revolutionary significance is a valid justification for the fact that “this Bill is being rushed through under emergency measures that are generally applied to such things as terrorist threats”. 

Put another way: Daley thinks that ordinary standard non-revolutionary and insignificant bills should be subject to tight Parliamentary scrutiny, but this bill’s very revolutionary and significant potential means that it is much too important to be hampered by in-depth scrutiny by MPs.

You might think that this stands logic on its head, but not Janet. Oh no. Her unique insight is that nasty opposition MPs are to blame “...the Labour front bench has focused its attacks on the fact that this Bill is being rushed through under emergency measures that are generally applied to such things as terrorist threats....” But that’s not a problem because as far as she is concerned...”the condition of Britain's state schooling is pretty much on a par as a national peril with a campaign of dirty bombs.” By the same logic, cutting 700 schools out of the building programme in England and Wales is a defence against terrorist attack....maybe we should cut the other 700....

Not that Janet wants the bill to escape scrutiny. Heaven forfend. As she approvingly reports...” .... as Mr Gove said... the content of this measure is what should be under discussion, rather than the process by which it is being passed”.  Which leaves the puzzling question: if it is right and a good thing (as the bold Janet suggests) that the bill is being rushed through Parliament without the normal scrutiny, how is Parliament supposed to “discuss” the content of the bill? Isn’t the fact that the “content of this measure” is not under proper discussion a factor of the “....process by which it is being passed”? If you rush a bill thorough Parliament on a timetable normally reserved for terrorist legislation, how can the content be discussed properly?

Janet further contends that “.. it is the content that is so very awkward for the vested interests that are fighting against these reforms..”. But if that were so the “vested interests” would be ushering the bill quietly through Parliament with as little overview as possible, thus avoiding any “awkward” questions: but these so called “vested interests” are actually calling for greater scrutiny... according to Janet’s “logic” they must be nuts..!!??
Or could the problem be Janet’s “logic”?