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/commentisfree/2013/may/08/queens-speech-pageantry-not-purpose

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

Version 0 Version 1
Queen's speech: pageantry without purpose Queen's speech: pageantry without purpose
(5 months later)
Not everything in Wednesday's Queen's speech was bad. On the first day of the experimental royal job share, Her Majesty gave notice that consumer rights would be dragged into the internet age. No one need object to that, nor to the promise to clarify what carers can request from their council. But such measures, however worthy, are the stuff of administration – things officials propose and ministers dispose of by scribbling their initials on the submission. Likewise, the pledge to fill the gaps in the compensation system for workers made sick by asbestos can only be welcomed, although it can be traced back to a consultation instigated by the tail-end Brown administration and can hardly be called a distinctive coalition contribution. Indeed, with the pageantry already knocked off the top of the news by reports from Old Trafford, the very idea of a cohesive coalition programme about anything other than cuts looks that bit harder to sustain.Not everything in Wednesday's Queen's speech was bad. On the first day of the experimental royal job share, Her Majesty gave notice that consumer rights would be dragged into the internet age. No one need object to that, nor to the promise to clarify what carers can request from their council. But such measures, however worthy, are the stuff of administration – things officials propose and ministers dispose of by scribbling their initials on the submission. Likewise, the pledge to fill the gaps in the compensation system for workers made sick by asbestos can only be welcomed, although it can be traced back to a consultation instigated by the tail-end Brown administration and can hardly be called a distinctive coalition contribution. Indeed, with the pageantry already knocked off the top of the news by reports from Old Trafford, the very idea of a cohesive coalition programme about anything other than cuts looks that bit harder to sustain.
Back in that confident morning in May 2010, David Cameron and Nick Clegg proclaimed something that sounded new: two-party government animated by a love of freedom, and a determination to match modest expectations of what the state could achieve with a modesty about how much power the state could command over the citizen. The immediate rejection of ID cards was the epitome of that. But the top line yesterday – which overshadowed more interesting moves on prisons and pensions – was a rather mean-spirited "crackdown" on immigrants' access to state services, which it is hard to imagine could work without a universal identity scheme, so that schools and hospitals can figure out who to exclude.Back in that confident morning in May 2010, David Cameron and Nick Clegg proclaimed something that sounded new: two-party government animated by a love of freedom, and a determination to match modest expectations of what the state could achieve with a modesty about how much power the state could command over the citizen. The immediate rejection of ID cards was the epitome of that. But the top line yesterday – which overshadowed more interesting moves on prisons and pensions – was a rather mean-spirited "crackdown" on immigrants' access to state services, which it is hard to imagine could work without a universal identity scheme, so that schools and hospitals can figure out who to exclude.
As late as 2012, the gracious address contained flecks of modernising reform – the (largely delivered) move to abolish male primogeniture in the monarchy and the (entirely aborted) effort at electing the Lords. There was less of that yesterday. And the broader claim to libertarianism – already strained by Tory rancour on human rights, and a new law on secret courts – looks thinner after the announcement about restraining the courts' ability to consider family life in deportation cases. Conservatives, please pause and note that this last change is possible only because Britain's Human Rights Act is a flexible instrument. Without any need for repeal, still less Downing Street's appalling recent suggestion of quitting the European convention, the government will likely succeed in curbing the rights of deportees and their hapless children. What it will not do, however, is make any material difference to Britain's pattern of immigration by a change which will, at most, affect 180 appeals a year.As late as 2012, the gracious address contained flecks of modernising reform – the (largely delivered) move to abolish male primogeniture in the monarchy and the (entirely aborted) effort at electing the Lords. There was less of that yesterday. And the broader claim to libertarianism – already strained by Tory rancour on human rights, and a new law on secret courts – looks thinner after the announcement about restraining the courts' ability to consider family life in deportation cases. Conservatives, please pause and note that this last change is possible only because Britain's Human Rights Act is a flexible instrument. Without any need for repeal, still less Downing Street's appalling recent suggestion of quitting the European convention, the government will likely succeed in curbing the rights of deportees and their hapless children. What it will not do, however, is make any material difference to Britain's pattern of immigration by a change which will, at most, affect 180 appeals a year.
This was not the only section of the speech to make much ado about very little. Her Majesty read out a script that named economic strength as the priority, but not even coalition loyalists can imagine that Westminster can do much to bring about that elusive recovery; the initiative and the decisions that count rest with the Bank and the Treasury. A bolder government could nonetheless be making strides on the social front. Not this government, which is now so embroiled in fighting with itself that it no longer has the stomach to take on outside vested interests. Within a couple of months it has caved in to both the drinks industry, over minimum pricing, and the tobacco manufacturers, over plain packaging: two potentially significant reforms abandoned for the sake of getting Nigel Farage to raise a glass.This was not the only section of the speech to make much ado about very little. Her Majesty read out a script that named economic strength as the priority, but not even coalition loyalists can imagine that Westminster can do much to bring about that elusive recovery; the initiative and the decisions that count rest with the Bank and the Treasury. A bolder government could nonetheless be making strides on the social front. Not this government, which is now so embroiled in fighting with itself that it no longer has the stomach to take on outside vested interests. Within a couple of months it has caved in to both the drinks industry, over minimum pricing, and the tobacco manufacturers, over plain packaging: two potentially significant reforms abandoned for the sake of getting Nigel Farage to raise a glass.
The day after the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the coalition was rapidly undoing New Labour's achievements on child poverty, a target it had initially endorsed, the Cameron administration also failed to honour its original pledge to enshrine the international aid target in law. Of course, no government does everything that it hopes. More significant than any one broken promise is the sense of an administration drifting ever further away from its progressive early talk. Yesterday's Queen's speech won't restore the sense of purpose. Through the mix of good and bad, a faltering lurch to the right could be discerned.The day after the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that the coalition was rapidly undoing New Labour's achievements on child poverty, a target it had initially endorsed, the Cameron administration also failed to honour its original pledge to enshrine the international aid target in law. Of course, no government does everything that it hopes. More significant than any one broken promise is the sense of an administration drifting ever further away from its progressive early talk. Yesterday's Queen's speech won't restore the sense of purpose. Through the mix of good and bad, a faltering lurch to the right could be discerned.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.