http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/26/queens-speech-miliband
The over riding problem with these "What might have been" articles is that history has shown us, time after time, that the proposals of governments as outlined in the Queens Speech are subsequently modified, abandoned or otherwise amended to suit the changing fortunes of the incumbent government. Where proposals are implemented, they are frequently the less controversial aspects of what is often a package designed more to appeal to popular perception than to the real needs of society. Radical? No. Aspirational? No.
Perhaps Polly Toynbee and Lord Falconer could respond to a few enquiries in respect of a Queens Speech. Where is the policy to end austerity and to restore the cuts already made by the Conservative dominated Coalition? Where is the commitment to build not 200 but 300,000 new homes of which 60% will be "social housing" provided by either local councils or housing societies? Where is the commitment to repeal the anti trade union legislation in place since the days of Thatcher? What about those measures to be introduced to control bank and privatised companies in the utilities markets and energy supplies or to take back into public ownership the Railways and the Post Office? At the end of the day, the only consideration is whether the current Labour Party has the "political will" to do what is right rather than what is popular to produce a real radical programme and then implement it. From the available evidence, the answer is "No they do not".
Look at the alternative Queen’s speech and wonder what might have been.
 |
| Polly Toynbee. What might have been? |
 |
| Lord Falconer. Prepared a Labour Queens speech |
The over riding problem with these "What might have been" articles is that history has shown us, time after time, that the proposals of governments as outlined in the Queens Speech are subsequently modified, abandoned or otherwise amended to suit the changing fortunes of the incumbent government. Where proposals are implemented, they are frequently the less controversial aspects of what is often a package designed more to appeal to popular perception than to the real needs of society. Radical? No. Aspirational? No.
Perhaps Polly Toynbee and Lord Falconer could respond to a few enquiries in respect of a Queens Speech. Where is the policy to end austerity and to restore the cuts already made by the Conservative dominated Coalition? Where is the commitment to build not 200 but 300,000 new homes of which 60% will be "social housing" provided by either local councils or housing societies? Where is the commitment to repeal the anti trade union legislation in place since the days of Thatcher? What about those measures to be introduced to control bank and privatised companies in the utilities markets and energy supplies or to take back into public ownership the Railways and the Post Office? At the end of the day, the only consideration is whether the current Labour Party has the "political will" to do what is right rather than what is popular to produce a real radical programme and then implement it. From the available evidence, the answer is "No they do not".
Comments
Post a Comment