Disappointment delivered

May 9, 2012 12:52 pm

Today’s Queen’s Speech is being marketed by the Government as the second phase of the coalition, focusing, as the speech – carefully crafted in 10 Downing Street – puts it, on “economic growth, justice and constitutional reform”.

Well, as I listened to the words being read out in the chamber of the Lords this morning, you could have fooled me.

What I heard was a speech from a Government which is incompetent, unfair and out of touch.  What I heard was little, if anything, on jobs and growth. Little, if anything, to help most people, with their real worries – about their jobs, their mortgages or rents, their grocery bills, about whether they can afford to fill up the car, and their children’s future.

What I heard, just as we heard in the Budget, is this government helping their own.  The Coalition is doing nothing for the vast majority of people across the country because this government is putting the wrong people first. Indeed, instead of trying to tackle the people’s priorities, this government wants to tackle the Coalition’s priorities.

That’s why, for instance, they’re proposing Lords reform – something that isn’t high on most people’s worry lists.

Don’t get me wrong, Labour, our Peers included, wants to see reform of the Lords.  But we want to get reform right, and the government’s proposals we have seen from the government so far don’t do that.

And we don’t share the LibDems view that it is the burning issue which, at the time of the first double-dip recession since the mid-1970s, absolutely must be addressed now.

It was interesting to hear the media briefing around the proposal – suggesting that not much will move if there isn’t consensus, if it frightens the horses: that is, if it provokes opposition, not so much from Labour, but as Lord Strathclyde, the Tory Leader of the Lords, has warned from backbench Tory MPs, who could kill the government’s Bill.  We shall see.

So, yes, the Coalition’s legislative programme does indeed include some constitutional reform, as it claims.  But justice?  Economic growth?  Where were the legislative proposals on those issues?

Bills on deregulating business, reforming competition law and banking reform won’t do much, if anything, in themselves, to get our economy going again.

And justice?  A bill on victims and witnesses was promised – but nothing.  Reforming the law on defamation won’t do much to allay people’s fear of crime – which will be underlined when police march in London tomorrow under the banner ’20% cuts are criminal’, over 16,000 job losses, cuts so deep that my local and principled Chief Constable in South Gloucestershire resigned rather than implement them.

We will judge whether there’s anything of value in the bills the government is proposing to bring forward on adult care, on family-friendly work flexibility, on arrangements for children with special educational needs, on pensions, on a green investment bank, on public sector pensions and others.  The devil will be in the detail – and we’ve seen in this last, long, two-year session how wretched that detail can be, on the NHS, on welfare, on legal aid, and on forests.

What we should have seen today were measures to give everyone a fair deal on tax, reversing the tax cuts for the rich; a fair deal on energy, breaking up the big six energy companies and helping pensioners; a fair deal on transport, stopping above-inflation price rises; a fair deal for consumers, with new powers to combat rip-off surcharges by banks and others; and a fair deal on jobs, taxing bankers’ bonuses to help young people into work.

What we did see today was a no-change programme from this no-change government.  A government which is continuing to cut spending and raise taxes too far and too fast, leading directly to low, if any, growth, and high unemployment.

We’ll see a government with the wrong priorities, doing the wrong things, and aiming to help the wrong people.

What last week’s elections made crystal clear is what the country wants is action: on jobs, growth and the economy. Action to help our country, not action that just serves to help the Coalition.

 Baroness Jan Royall of Blaisdon is Labour’s Leader in the House of Lords, and was first published here.

  • Paula Dirac

    At least no mention of further persecution of the unemployed, sick, disabled, or carers was announced. Good news for the Labour Party since sticking it to the poor will still an option open for prosecution if by some dark miracle Labour ever regained power again.

  • MonkeyBot5000

    That’s why, for instance, they’re proposing Lords reform – something that isn’t high on most people’s worry lists.

    Please don’t take this personally, but as a member of the Lords, any opinion you have on the importance, popularity or relevance of Lords reform is rendered null and void.

    Whichever party tries to enact reform, the other side will block it and the Lords can always blame it on political bickering in the House of Commons. Different parties will try and stuff it full of their supporters and it will remain a bastion of the corrupt, the incompetent and the self-entitled.

Latest

  • Comment Reaching new communities

    Reaching new communities

    This article is from Our Labour, Our Communities – a pamphlet of 10 essays by Labour PPCs, published by LabourList in partnership with Lisa Nandy MP. I am proud to be standing as the candidate for my hometown of Hastings & Rye, but I am equally proud to stand as a parliamentary candidate who is also half Chinese and half British. My mother is Chinese Malaysian and came to this country 41 years ago to be a nurse in Hastings and continues to […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Labour could lose out by not making it’s stance on Trident clear

    Cutting Trident will be the price of support in a hung parliament. That’s the news reported from a meeting of the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Green leaders this week. With Labour’s slim lead and the SNP and Green vote threatening to impact on its share, this is a serious issue. Labour’s policy clearly states, ‘Labour has said that we are committed to a minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. It would require a clear body […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Featured Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Is Cameron “frit” of TV debates? Let’s try the empty chair threat

    Lord Ashcroft has told him he shouldn’t have done it in 2010. Lynton Crosby has told him not to do it in 2015. It’s no surprise that David Cameron is trying to wriggle out of televised leader debates during the General Election – even though he has said he is willing to take part “in principle”. Time perhaps to dust off one of Margaret Thatcher’s favourite barbs “He’s frit.” Neil Kinnock tried it in 1992 to try to goad John Major into […]

    Read more →
  • Comment Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    Flexibility makes for good work, strong families and thriving communities

    By Stephen Timms MP and Ian Murray MP The Christmas period reminds us that modern life can be busy, hurried and demanding. The pressures of work, demands of family life and hectic Christmas schedules can prove stretching as we juggle competing demands. Increasingly the need for flexible work is driven by the complex shape of people’s lives; as parents go to work, struggle to make ends meet, perform career roles, take their children to school and activities and try and carve […]

    Read more →
  • News Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    Labour MP questions campaigning roles of publicly funded advisers

    As the start of the long campaign begins today, curbing the amount of money parties can spend between now and May 7th, Labour MP Jon Ashworth has sought to clarify what precautions are being taken to ensure publicly-funded government advisers are not using their time campaigning. Ashworth has sent a letter to senior civil servant Jeremy Heywood, asking him to answer a number of questions about what kind of campaigning activity was permitted and undertaken by special advisers (SpAds) in […]

    Read more →