Yesterday's Queen's Speech to Parliament is being described as both "the most nakedly political in years", and "the opening shot in a six-month election campaign". Somebody please shoot me now. If this is the Labour government's idea of a winning election manifesto, we really don't need to wait so long for a chance to vote. In fact we probably don't need to vote at all, unless, God forbid, the electorate really is as gullible as Gordon Brown et al appear to think it is.
I'm not sure which aspect of the speech is more maddening -- what's in it, or what's not. Let's just take a couple of the inclusions. There's to be a bill to curb internet piracy, a problem that seems to obsess Lord Mandelson but probably means absolutely nothing to most voters. Can this really be a priority? Then there's a bill to address the non-problem of older people having to sell their homes to pay for care, by providing free at-home care to all who request it. (When I say it's a non-problem, I don't mean that people don't have to sell their homes to pay for care. I mean that it's not a problem that they have to do so). This half-assed idea has been torn to shreds not only by the opposition, but by Labour peers. One, Lord Lipsey, believes it will increase isolation and disease among older folk who are persuaded to live at home (possibly by their greedy heirs) rather than move into care.
As for the exclusions, the absence of any legislation to deal with the MPs expenses scandal is remarkable. It has raised the eyebrows not only of the politicians but of Sir Christopher Kelly, who only just finished a very long report with all manner of recommendations for fixing the system. (Harriet Harman told the Commons today that reforms could go ahead without any new legislation. I'm sure we're all reassured by that).
The biggest exclusion of all, of course, is any semblance of costing for this ragbag of ideas. The Chancellor's pre-budget report, due later this month, is unlikely to make pleasant reading. It will be interesting to see what assumptions he makes about spending and revenues in order to meet the goal of cutting the deficit within four years, a target that is supposed to be made mandatory by another wackjob bill in the Queen's Speech. (Zeno's budget paradox: if the deficit really does fall by 50% in the next four years, and the next government announces another 50% reduction for the succeeding four years, how long will it take for the public finances to return to surplus? The answer is, of course, that it never will, which is one reason why long-term targeting of this sort should be avoided). The figures for public borrowing in October, which were published today, are not encouraging, so it would be an understatement to say that the Chancellor has no room for manouevre, even without this week's uncosted shopping list.
In the end, of course, this is all largely academic. I read somewhere that there are 33 sitting days left in the Parliamentary session, so the chances of any of the 15 bills in the Queen's Speech getting onto the statute books is pretty much nil. It seems almost cruel to have forced an 84-year old woman wearing a polar bear costume to schlep all the way down the Mall to read the speech. Maybe she was persuaded to do it in return for the promise of free at-home care in her later years. If I were you, your Maj, I wouldn't be holding my breath.
No comments:
Post a Comment