http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/26/queens-speech-miliband
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 o
f 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