As we told you a few weeks ago, Robert Philpot, Director of Progress, and editor of The Purple Book: A Progressive Future for Labour, has called for an alternative Queen’s speech, based upon the many ideas in The Purple Book.
In an article for the Huffington Post, Robert explained his motivations:
‘Few events in the political calendar underline quite so graphically the power of the government and the impotence of the opposition as much as the Queen's speech. Backed by all the pomp and finery the British state can muster, the Gracious Address, to give it its proper title, affords the government the opportunity to draw a line under past difficulties, and turn a somewhat dry recitation of its legislative programme into a demonstration of its political priorities.’
The day of the Queen's speech has finally arrived, and all month various politicians, commentators and activists have been stating what they would like to see appear in an alternative Queen's speech.
You can read the entire series here, but here's a round-up of what has been said:
Jacqui Smith, former Home Secretary, called for fiscal responsibility to be put first:
A ‘fiscal responsibility bill’ which legislates for the further strengthening and independence of the OBR and provides it with the power to monitor and report on new fiscal rules and targets including the requirement to achieve a budget surplus over the period of the first Parliament.
David Talbot called for a strengthening of the sure start programme:
Sure start was at the heart of Labour. One of Labour’s proudest achievements, the 3,000 centres built across Britain by the Labour government were based on proven evidence. The poorest children fall behind in language skills long before they ever walk through the school gates – and they never catch up.
Councillor Florence Nosegbe wants to see community empowerment:
The majority of the residents in the ward that I represent in Brixton Hill will probably not take much notice of the Queen’s speech as evidence suggests that people continue to feel alienated from the formal political process. The challenge for us as progressives is about how we reconnect with voters and maximise citizen participation.
Patrick Diamond would like to see an efficient, muscular state:
The aim of this shadow Queen’s speech is to create a wider base of asset ownership, to improve the supply of social housing, to tackle financial market excess, to give everyone a stake in the economy, and to ensure that men and women have greater choice in balancing the demands of caring and working.
Jeremy Miles would like to see all have a stake in society:
Labour’s alternative Queen’s speech should do three things. First: assert Labour’s commitment to fiscal rigour...Second: begin the work of reforming both our economy and our political culture so that people who have become marginalised from work and from society can have a meaningful stake...Third: remind people that, as well as being the party of social justice and equality, we are also a party which understands people’s aspirations, even in difficult times.
Peter Watt would like to see support and safety:
The first bill in any speech must therefore be to enshrine fiscal responsibility for this and future governments. Running irresponsible deficits is not progressive: you simply offer something to the poorest that the country cannot afford and then inevitably have to take it away again. So, the government must establish in law that its primary financial responsibility is to deliver a balanced budget over a given period of time. And that government expenditure does not exceed (say) 45 per cent of GDP. The role of the Office for Budget Responsibility must be beefed up so that it can monitor and publicly report on the implementation of these new legal responsibilities.
Alex White wants a ‘back-to-school’ Queen’s speech:
The Labour party must look to education as a way of winning arguments and changing lives. It shows our commitment to communities; education is where the future is built. It is also vital to our fiscal credibility that we find the middle ground between overspending and starving our schools of funds.