Occasionally - very occasionally - New Labour acts in the spirit of Old Labour. To say this is to pay Tony Blair's Thatcher-cloned creation the highest compliment.

The new Bill on animal welfare upholds Labour's finest tradition of radical, society-enhancing change. No way would a Tory government, especially one as beset with big problems as the present Government, have had people beavering away (if I may use that phrase) on measures that will outlaw the purchase of pets by children and the giving of animals as prizes, symbolised by those hapless fairground goldfish. On top comes an increased duty of care, most notably with a requirement that animals must be given the freedom to behave naturally, and improved ability by the authorities to intervene and prosecute.

As the RSPCA says: "Since 1911 (the year of the last major animal welfare Act) there has been a huge shift in society's understanding of animals. In 1911 most were considered tools.'' Not much earlier they were also a legitimate source of perverted pleasure. If a farmer had a bull, and he and some friends fancied pitting their dogs against it, why not? The bull and the dogs were their "property", to do with as they wished. Short of murder, a similar attitude was once taken with wives.

With its pathological aversion to the "nanny state", Toryism has rarely been prepared to end even such uncivilised "freedoms" as these. Contradicting its own claim that Parliament shouldn't "waste time'' on hunting, it has even promised to restore this "sport" should Labour finally get around to banning it.

Sadly, however, the new legislation doesn't cover wild animals. And though the maximum jail sentence is doubled, the new maximum of 51 weeks still means only 25 in jail. This by no means matches the public's revulsion at the worst cases of mistreatment of animals, including organised dog fights and cock fights. Extended to badger baiting, the shooting of rare birds and serious egg theft, a maximum of at least five years would better fit the public mood.

Still, here we have a true step forward. Let's be grateful.

The newly-discovered painting said to revise the record of Captain Cook's death does nothing of the sort. Showing Cook brandishing a musket as he is about to be overwhelmed by natives wielding clubs and spears, the picture is perfectly compatible with the famous image of Cook signalling his men not to open fire. For who wouldn't fight for their life at the moment they are about to be beaten to death? Of course, promoting the picture as a radical re-drawing of history will raise interest in its sale at auction. And that is what the hype is about.

Beyond substituting "Excellence" for "Empire" and scrapping automatic honours for civil servants, ideas on what to do with our discredited honours system seem thin on the ground. Do we need honours at all? Isn't there something immature in our craving for gongs and baubles? Why not give the lot, except for awards for bravery, the Order of the Boot? A spokesman for Burke's Peerage says the abolition of knighthoods would "remove much of the incentive for contributors to public service''. Ah, so that's why they do it. But gongs minted through this motive look like base metal.