This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/may/09/queens-speech-david-cameron-theme

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Queen's speech: Cameron's problem is his programme lacks a theme Queen's speech: Cameron's problem is his programme lacks a theme
(about 1 hour later)
The Queen turned up and did her stuff, as usual. She's one of the more reliable features of the British political scene at a time of great change when politics' ability to influence the course of events is often slight. Is the ship of state merely becalmed like Coleridge's ancient mariner? Or is the coalition's plight more desperate like Gericault's 1819 painting of the Raft of the Medusa? The Queen turned up and did her stuff, as usual. She's one of the more reliable features of the British political scene at a time of great change, when the ability of politics to influence the course of events is often slight. Is the ship of state merely becalmed like Coleridge's ancient mariner? Or is the coalition's plight more desperate like Gericault's 1819 painting of the Raft of the Medusa?
The government's line-to-take today has been that legislation isn't everything and that its own priority is to get the economy moving again in ways that don't all depend on new laws. Fair points, both of them, governments have too often passed ineffectual bills in recent years, laws which gathered dust or weren't even implemented, let alone enforced. The government's line-to-take today has been that legislation isn't everything and that the priority is to get the economy moving again in ways that don't all depend on new laws. Fair points, both of them: governments have too often passed ineffectual bills in recent years, laws that gathered dust or weren't implemented or enforced.
But voters are entitled to look at the 2012 Queen's speech and wonder what it's doing to promote the government's declared priorities – and their own. That's less clear than usual. The PR man's language beloved of New Labour – opportunity, fairness, responsibility, rebalancing, revolutionising, law-abiding and the rest – has infected the coalition too.But voters are entitled to look at the 2012 Queen's speech and wonder what it's doing to promote the government's declared priorities – and their own. That's less clear than usual. The PR man's language beloved of New Labour – opportunity, fairness, responsibility, rebalancing, revolutionising, law-abiding and the rest – has infected the coalition too.
It's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff and decide which half is being put on the statute book, the Wheat Act (2012) or the Chaff (Extension) Act? More than is usually the case the programme lacks a theme, a unifying narrative. That's becoming a problem for Cameron. He likes being prime minister, sometimes looks good at it (sometimes too busy texting Rebekah Brooks?), but people are asking more stridently what he stands for apart from office.It's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff and decide which half is being put on the statute book, the Wheat Act (2012) or the Chaff (Extension) Act? More than is usually the case the programme lacks a theme, a unifying narrative. That's becoming a problem for Cameron. He likes being prime minister, sometimes looks good at it (sometimes too busy texting Rebekah Brooks?), but people are asking more stridently what he stands for apart from office.
That said, there is some stuff buried in the small print that will help citizens. Stronger banking regulation, a shareholder veto over excess executive pay, the grocery code to help small suppliers stand up to the supermarkets, more efficient courts and employment tribunals, a lighter burden of regulation on small business, if they do what it says on the tin (yes, it's a big if), they will represent modest progress. More competition in the water industry? Yes please. That said, there is some stuff buried in the small print that will help citizens. Stronger banking regulation, a shareholder veto over excess executive pay, the grocery code to help small suppliers stand up to the supermarkets, more efficient courts and employment tribunals, a lighter burden of regulation on small business – if they do what it says on the tin (yes, it's a big if), they will represent modest progress. More competition in the water industry? Yes please.
Personally, I like the idea that we are de-gendering the royal succession – though it won't create many jobs – and putting the occasional TV camera in courts. Driving under the influence of drugs, that's an anomaly worth sorting. Intelligence data in courts is tricky, so is the security folks' demand to access patterns of data traffic ( not the contents) in the same way they already do phones (so it may not be that tricky). Personally, I like the idea that we are de-gendering the royal succession – though it won't create many jobs – and putting the occasional TV camera in courts. Driving under the influence of drugs, that's an anomaly worth sorting. Intelligence data in courts is tricky, so is the security folks' demand to access patterns of data traffic (not the contents) in the same way they already do phones (so it may not be that tricky).
And both journalism and academic researchers – both under attack from libel merchants – should be grateful if, as promised, there is greater public interest protection for serious reporting and research. We'll see, though there's a tentative tone to much of the programme – bills which are draft or eviscerated – which is not encouraging. Family policy, presented as a central feature, is torn by differing coalition values and (as always) by Treasury fears that initiatives might cost money it doesn't. And journalists and academic researchers – both under attack from libel merchants – should be grateful if, as promised, there is greater public interest protection for serious reporting and research. We'll see, though there's a tentative tone to much of the programme – bills that are draft or eviscerated, which is not encouraging. Family policy, presented as a central feature, is torn by differing coalition values and (as always) by Treasury fears that initiatives might be unaffordable.
That is almost certainly why the long-delayed social care bill won't amount to much because it ducks the central question of who pays and in what proportion – granny, family or the state? That is almost certainly why the long-delayed social care bill won't amount to much, because it ducks the central question of who pays and in what proportion – granny, family or the state?
I'm not wasting much time on Lords reform which has excited so much media interest, largely because the very public feuding between coalition factions, peers and the Labour party in recent days confirm the hunch that it isn't going to get far, doesn't deserve to and that most voters won't notice or care. I'm not wasting much time on Lords reform, which has excited so much media interest, largely because the very public feuding between coalition factions, peers and the Labour party in recent days confirm the hunch that it isn't going to get far, doesn't deserve to do so, and that most voters won't notice or care.
In Labour's instant critique of the Queen's speech it is pointed out that Cameron is culling 50 MPs, but has already added 100 peers to the building. Never mind, the House of Lords keeps them busy and off the street. As social care of the elderly goes, it's a shame every town can't have one.In Labour's instant critique of the Queen's speech it is pointed out that Cameron is culling 50 MPs, but has already added 100 peers to the building. Never mind, the House of Lords keeps them busy and off the street. As social care of the elderly goes, it's a shame every town can't have one.