It is now 12 years since the Queen was first obliged to enter the Palace of Westminster and deliver a speech studded with the most awful New Labour clichés. Over the years, Her Majesty’s dismay during the state opening of parliament has become steadily more visible — and little wonder. As Labour ekes a fifth year out of this parliament, it is bowing out with perhaps the most fatuous and futile agenda of its 13 years in power. But one which, nonetheless, offers useful insights into why this government failed.
It was, as a gleeful but unnamed minister said, ‘one of the most political Queen’s Speeches in history’ — this is not something to boast about. But to Gordon Brown, governing is an act of party political violence. The notion of the national interest has been supplanted by that of factional advantage. What’s good for Britain has, in his head, become fused with what is good for Labour. The tragedy is that Mr Brown does not know what is good for either.
The Queen’s Speech demonstrates this. We have the comically mistimed Financial Responsibility Bill, obliging government to halve the deficit within four years. Has anyone spotted the trick? Last year’s Budget envisaged the deficit being eliminated in two years. The Queen was right to stumble on the phrase ‘global economic downturn’. There is nothing global about Mr Brown’s rank economic incompetence which has left Britain with the worst deficit of any major developed country.
Then come the targets. The putting of targets into law reveals Mr Brown’s central delusion: that good intentions are enough. This is the main difference between Labour and the Conservatives: the former specialise in pious aims, and the latter in delivering results. It is, of course, the biggest mistake in politics to judge a policy by its intention rather than its results. There is no point legislating for child poverty to be abolished by 2020 if poverty is growing deeper and more entrenched. Ultimately, Labour failed because it never understood this.
If Labour had been so concerned about the welfare of the elderly, why wait for year 12 to offer free personal care? Because when Labour expected to be in power, it rejected these proposals as unaffordable and unworkable. Now that it does not expect to win the next election Labour has reverted to type: the natural party of opposition. The years of power have given the party altitude sickness. The Queen’s Speech showed Labour making the transformation away from government: its legislative agenda was little more than a farewell note from a party preparing for the political wilderness.
But what, after 12 years and an estimated 31,500 new laws, has Labour done to leave British society either stronger or fairer?
The party was at its most chillingly audacious when legislating not just for what people do, but what they say. Just last week, an Englishman was jailed for being rude about the Scots. A few months ago, a man was arrested for discussing religion in his own home — he was a Christian bed-and-breakfast owner and his guest a touchy Muslim.
So the problem awaiting the Conservatives is simple: a country with too many laws that have too many unintended consequences. Generally speaking the less a government does, the better off the rest of us are — and the Tories would do well to remember this. The Cameron government should not judge success by how long they detain the Queen during her speech. What is needed is not a new avalanche of Tory laws, but a Great Repeal Act to tidy up the mess which Labour has left behind.
Comments