The Queen’s Speech kicks the tricky decisions away

If you were hoping for Tuesday’s Queen’s Speech to feature a lightbulb moment generating sudden insight into the Johnson government’s agenda then, like me, you are probably disappointed. This disappointment was prefigured by the second sentence, which had the Queen using the ubiquitous verb, to “level up”, a phrase already associated with its own lack of definition and a sense of details to follow. It was reinforced by the words “social care” – proposals will be brought forward, apparently. But none of us know yet if the Treasury will have its way and gain access to housing wealth to close the financial gap. Proposals will also be “brought forward” to create jobs and improve regulation, but there is still no sense of what the great deregulatory wins from Brexit are to be. And for those hoping to see progress on other agendas almost as longstanding, there is more disappointment in the non-appearance of a hoped-for Employment Bill.

There was little mention of the pandemic – and less still on the crisis facing the NHS

Above all, there is still a sense of magical thinking in the way the government talks about how it will achieve its objectives. Economic ties are strengthened with infrastructure – as if centuries-long gaps in regional growth come down to the quality of the roads and rails spanning our not-particularly-large country. This government has been consistent in cheerleading for innovation, and backs its words with money – but on closer examination, what does “build on the success of the vaccination programme to lead the world in life sciences” actually mean? The vaccination effort reflected the UK’s skill and aggression at striking procurement deals, combined with the operational excellence of the NHS and the British public’s impatience with anti-vaccination conspiracy. This has combined into a good result, but how does it create a template for “jobs and investment across the country”?

Given how much has changed since the last Queen’s Speech – a decisive electoral victory, the departure of President Trump, and real Brexit – it is surprising that the government agenda is not more altered. Beyond the preamble, the pandemic was barely mentioned, an admirable promise to help children make up for the years of schooling lost aside. A commitment to press ahead with the vaccination programme is not really a surprise. What was a surprise is that the speech had no similar acknowledgement of the depth of crisis facing the NHS, given the enormous backlog in operations looming there. The details given on funding were mostly to reiterate what has been granted, not what needs to be done next.

“Levelling up” risks looking like a generic promise to “make things better”

In light of the speed with which Covid-19 hit the country, fuzziness around how to address its impacts is understandable. But the aspiration to be a science superpower and to ‘level up’ the country are now more than two years old. It feels odd to read what sound like the same assertions as could be read in 2019 – that Britain will be a science superpower because it is boosting its R&D budget and creating a research agency to ape the US’ ARPA, for example. Never mind that the funding for the new Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is dwarfed by what even a small car company spends on R&D – this is the one detail we have to justify the statement that the UK will be a global science superpower.  

As for “levelling up”, the phrase is so widespread through the documents that it has become a generic term for “make things better”. There will be a white paper about it – a landmark white paper, in fact – but as for moving parts, the same bits are still there: some capital, such as through the Towns Fund; that magical belief in infrastructure; and the shift of some civil servants out of London. None of these would have felt unfamiliar to the Theresa May administration.  

Political force of will is no substitute for putting off the tricky details

In that heady period between their 2019 electoral victory and the pandemic, Johnson and his ministers seemed to believe that sheer political force of will was enough to resolve all policy dilemmas. Niggling details can be dealt with later, what counts is the political commitment. The course of the Brexit negotiations lent force to this portrayal – sheer determination carried them through. But the niggling details came back to bite – in that case, the creation of a border in the Irish Sea – and they will do on equally intractable matters like net zero, regional inequality, adequately financed social care, or “upskilling” millions of Britons for the post-Covid economy. None of these agendas have an easy template to follow. Climate change is the example par excellence – campaigners are beginning to question the progress-by-targets model and asking when the real dilemmas will be owned up to.

It is a high a bar to set, and Queen’s Speeches are not the moment that governments traditionally display all their operational tricks or own up to all the trade-offs. For this, we need to look to the debates in the days and weeks ahead. But the government cannot continually hope to push the trickier details into the future.