Simon, may I direct you to the official document.
OK, that's a lot more sensible, although it was almost certainly written by someone with a background in BASIC, and it has a few glaring errors. And it unfortunately doesn't take things anywhere near high enough to actually help those who have any kind of aptitude – they'll be bored shitless.
Education cannot be run for the few.
You appear to be thinking only of the brighter children.
No, not at all. I'm thinking of the children who have an aptitude for programming. They are far from the majority, but they are relatively easy to spot early on. As pvgb points out:
There is a school of thought that anyone can be taught how to program. Personally, I don"t believe a word of it.
Given the choice of having an elite few who can actually program really well, or an elite more who can program really well and a whole bunch of people who can program but less well I know which I would choose.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is trying to produce a "one size fits all" curriculum for ICT. Even if we assume that 100% of children are going to end up working in IT, some of them will be programmers, some will be web designers, some will be hardware engineers, and so on.
Half the population have an IQ below 100, and programming is based on mathematics. Not easy mathematics, but really quite hard mathematics. Far harder than the two questions you posted earlier. There's no way you're going to be able to teach a class that ranges from "moron" to "genius" to be able to program without totally losing the upper and lower percentiles (at a guess, ~ 30% either side of the median) due to boredom and complete inability to comprehend.
What's being suggested by Gove for ICT appears to provide some of the flexibility required to actually do what's best for the majority of the children, rather than trying to dumb everything down and get "better results".
The downside, of course, is that I doubt the utopia of an ICT curriculum aimed at doing what's right for the kids will actually happen. Partially because it will be seen as "streaming", and partially because it means a lot more work overall – teachers will have to be able to teach everything from web design and wordprocessing through to high-level computing concepts (stuff that's way, way above what's suggested in the document you linked), and examining boards would have to work out some way of actually testing the abilities in a fair way (after all, if it's all wrapped up together, a kid with a high level of aptitude for web design shouldn't be marked lower than someone with the same level in actual computer science). What would really fix it would be teaching computer science as a separate subject, but that's not been suggested (maybe I'll assuage my political conscience and go back on  below after all). Lumping everything together is not a solution, it's like trying to teach combined Maths, Biology and Art.
In short, my belief is that everyone should be given a chance to excel, but you can't expect everyone to manage it, or *anyone* to manage it if you're trying to forcibly pull the low end of the bell curve upwards. Yes, the technically competent, the programmers, are (viewed from a certain angle) an elite, and they always will be. Aiming to help them meet their potential is not a crime, and certainly doesn't mean running education "for the few".
 Well, just under half the population, actually, but it's close enough.
 Yes, I do mean 30% of the total on either side of the median. Yes, that means you're aiming at 40% or so of students, the "mediocre" ones. Running education "for the few", and ruining it for the rest in the process.
 As a lifelong marxist, I can't believe I just complimented something that's come out of a Conservative government, but there you go.
 I never really believed the "dumb down" arguments, but if what you posted are actually considered "hard" for 16 year-olds, then I may have to reconsider.