A roof over your head
Her Majesty gave a firm nod to the Government’s plans to improve the housing supply and avoid a bubble which appears to be steadily growing – in London and the South East, at least. Everyone cares about housing, including voters, but with limited funds, the government can only do so much. Confirmation of George Osborne’s plans for new garden cities will be welcomed in many quarters, but without funding, they could remain a pipe dream.
A lack of electioneering
Besides achieving the not inconsiderable feat of having the Queen parrot some election slogans (#longtermplan, anyone?), there was a noticeable lack of wedge issues. Perhaps the state opening was seen as an inappropriate platform to challenge the opposition (and indeed the Autumn Statement and Budget leave plenty of opportunity for policy bombshells), but with less than a year to go, the Government seems comfortable with its current offer.
Spectre of independence looms
Her Majesty may never have imagined her reign to include the possible break-up of the United Kingdom. But here, as she spoke of attempting to retain Scotland, while sending ever more power across the border, it was remarkable to think that the Conservative Party and the Monarchy, two grand institutions, now consider a form of British federalism to be a favourable outcome.
The subtle art of differentiation
If you look really hard, it was possible to spot the Lib Dem impact on this speech – a nod to climate change; the watered-down recall of MPs. But it wasn’t obvious until you came to free school meals. This was a policy announced by Nick Clegg, and which subsequently became the subject of some derision by Michael Gove advisor, Dominic Cummings. It will be a nice little giveaway on the doorstep, but is matched by the Tories’ marriage allowance, another hand-out to those precious swing voters.
The Zombie Parliament?
Amidst reports of bored MPs, and the prospect of a short and rather sparse Queen’s Speech, Labour released this advert listing all the things they would be doing if they were in Government. Ignoring the fact that after 4 years in opposition a list of fresh ideas is to be expected, it raises the interesting question of whether legislation leads to success.
The Westminster village responded with a resounding no, but voters send politicians to Parliament to do things, and if they feel something isn’t right, a philosophical argument about the effectiveness of centrally administered laws isn’t going to fix it.