The stories in today’s Sunday papers represent a mid-term outpouring of angst from the normally Tory supporting sections of our media.
I say this because Labour friends should be aware that David Cameron can take one positive thing from this shocking media day: things can only get better.
Yet even with this caveat, the newspapers are unusually hostile to the Conservative part of the coalition. This is not surprising as Conservatives are split within their coalition, and fractured inside their party – some commentators suggest permanently so.
Two stories stick out for me: Lord Howe’s rebuke for Mr Cameron and Philip Hammond’s outright public defiance of his leader. The former is unusual, particularly as Lord Howe is not usually in the market for “interventions”. The latter is almost unprecedented. It shows that Mr Cameron is too weak to sack his defiant Cabinet minister. This in itself reveals how his authority has evaporated in the last month.
Swivelgate:
‘Swivel-eyed loons’ hit back at PM’ (Sunday Telegraph splash) – ’”Swivel-eyed loons” storm engulfs PM’ (Mail on SUnday splash) – ‘Sack “Tory loons” aide, PM urged’ (Sunday Express page 2) – ‘Lord denies “swivel-eyed loon jibe’ (Sunday Mirror page 2) – Hennessy/Watts say Cameron has been told by Tory activists that he must repair the broken relationship between the leadership and the grassroots branded by one of his inner circle as ‘swivel-eyed loons’. Two issues — Europe and same-sex marriage — have been seized on by grassroots activists to claim that Cameron and his inner circle are “out of touch” with the views of ordinary members.
Last night, the chairman of Conservative Grassroots said the PM and his inner circle lived in a ‘Westminster bubble’. Yesterday, Lord Feldman put himself at the centre of the row over comments about activists, as he denied making the remarks after rumours circulated on social networking sites that he was responsible. He admitted speaking to journalists after a private dinner for Conservative Friends of Pakistan but said it was ‘completely untrue’ that he had called activists “swivel-eyed loons”.
Sources said the peer came out of a private room in the hotel and spoke to journalists who were on a table in a public area with a ‘fifth man’, understood to be a senior civil servant. The “fifth man” was said to have said he could not recollect the exact words used. The Telegraph said it stood by its report. It and the other newspapers have not named the member of Cameron’s circle behind the slur. Shapps described Feldman as a ‘good guy’ who was ‘very straightforward and honest’. Robert Woollard, a former chairman of Wycombe Conservative Association: ‘These are arrogant and pompous comments that show the utter contempt some people in Cameron’s camp have for the grassroots of our party’.
The timing of the “swivel-eyed loon” row is potentially damaging. This week, Cameron faces a new showdown with his party, with up to 200 backbenchers expected to vote against his plans to allow same-sex couples to marry. Cabinet ministers are expected to be among the rebels. David Burrowes writes in an article for the Sunday Telegraph that the “loon” comments would only reinforce the feeling of alienation the gay marriage plan has created among Tory supporters. The issue of Europe was also at the heart of the row. In an interview with this newspaper, Hague rules out any chance of the Conservatives forging a pact with Ukip ahead of the 2015 election: ‘We are not fighting the election on the basis of pacts with others’.
The Foreign Secretary was said by senior Tory sources to have been ‘furious’ after Gove and Hammond made comments on the EU last weekend. Hague says today: ‘The rest of the Cabinet will not be answering hypothetical questions’ (S Tele) … A News International source: ‘There is no doubt Feldman used the words “loon” and “swivelled-eyed”’. The source said it was a ‘lie’ for Cameron and Feldman to deny it (Mail on Sunday).
‘Tory chief on rack over ‘loons’ slur’ (Sunday Times splash) – ‘PM goes to war with press over “loon” slur’ (IoS splash) – ‘Top Tory: I’m not the “loon” loony’ (People page 2) – ‘”Loons” tell PM to swivel on it’ (Sun page 2) – Downing Street weighed in yesterday in defence of the multimillionaire businessman against his accusers, saying the PM ‘supports Lord Feldman’s position’.
However, as more details emerged of the alleged exchange, the newspapers that published the original reports insisted a senior member of the PM’s inner circle did use the words attributed. Oakeshott/Woolf think the row threatens to further alienate the PM from grassroots members of the Tory party, many of whom are already in open revolt. The timing could not be worse for No 10, coming just days before a crunch Commons vote on gay marriage.
More than 30 local Tory chairmen and former chairmen will today deliver a letter to the PM, warning that his ‘failure to listen … to the concerns of loyal grassroots members’ is causing many to quit, adding: ‘Some are lost forever. Some of course are joining UKIP’. Lord Ashcroft yesterday wrote on Twitter: ‘Strategy emerging. UKIP fruitcakes and clowns. Activists mad swivel-eyed loons and oh some voters f****** Muslims. Not sure it will work!!’ Julian Lewis: ‘What bothers me are that these views are all too reminiscent of the faction of the party that has managed to gain control.
I regret to observe that this person is undoubtedly speaking with the unwise candour of all too many people at the top of the party’. Steve Baker: ‘It is intolerable to insult our members in such a casual and contemptuous manner. I really think Cameron ought to fire whoever said it’. Andrew Rosindell: ‘This makes us long for the type of leadership we had with Mrs Thatcher. She would never have been disrespectful to activists’. He added that Cameron needed to ‘reconnect’ with ordinary Conservatives (Sunday Times) … Brady/Merrick reckon Cameron has risked an extraordinary stand-off between Downing Street and newspapers in defending Feldman. The dispute has erupted at a difficult time in No 10′s relationship with the press, as they haggle over future media regulation in the wake of the Leveson report.
Ben Harris-Quinney, director of Conservative Grassroots: ‘It just reinforces the idea that the party is being run by a metropolitan elite who display nothing but disdain for their own members, grassroots and even MPs’. Dorries: ‘If I had made that comment I would have been disciplined. My activists are decent, hard-working people and they are very far from “swivel-eyed loons”’. Bone: ‘Clearly, anyone who takes these views could not possibly want to remain a member of the Conservative Party, even less still want to advise the PM’ (Independent on SUnday).
Europe
‘Lord Howe: Tory party is ‘out of control’ over Europe’ (Observer splash) – Boffey writes that Howe has launched a scathing attack on the PM, accusing him of running scared of his backbenchers and endangering Britain’s future in Europe. The PM’s actions, Howe writes in the Observer, have turned an internal Tory problem into a national one. He laments the ‘new, almost farcical’ level of debate over Europe in the Tory party, and says that Labour and the Lib Dems may need to bear the burden of retrieving the situation.
Howe writes: ‘Sadly, by making it clear in January that he opposes the current terms of UK membership of the EU, the PM has opened a Pandora’s box politically and seems to be losing control of his party in the process. The ratchet-effect of Euroscepticism has now gone so far that the Conservative leadership is in effect running scared of its own backbenchers, let alone Ukip, having allowed deep anti-Europeanism to infect the very soul of the party’. Howe adds that the events of recent days, in which the PM has been forced to offer more and more to satisfy his Eurosceptic MPs, were ‘more like the politics of the French Fourth Republic than the serious practice of government’.
Howe believes that the UK is unlikely to hold anything like the position of power to which it aspires without the vehicle of the EU: ‘Leaving the union would … be a tragic expression of our shrinking influence and role in the world – and the humbling of our ambitions … to remain a serious political or economic player on the global stage’. He adds: ‘This week has shown that the Conservative Party’s long nervous breakdown over Europe continues, and what is essentially a Tory problem is now, once again, becoming a national problem, too. A number of serious mistakes have been made but the situation is not irretrievable. What is needed is a mixture of clear thinking, strong leadership and an overriding concern for the national interest – not party management or advantage’ (Observer) … ‘This is a new, farcical low and Cameron is losing control’ (Observer op-ed) – Howe article
‘Out, out, out! Can anybody stem the Eurosceptic tide?’ (Observer page 26-27) – Boffey talks to Baron, who insists: ‘We are reinforcing the PM’s direction of travel. It’s his direction of travel, as I understand it’. Baron adds: ‘The British people are not into this vision thing. We have a proud history. For reasons different to those on the continent, we perhaps have a bit more confidence in ourselves, I don’t know. But we didn’t join for ever closer political union. We want friendly terms, we want to co-operate on what is important. We want good trade relationships, and wish the EU all the best, but we are going to balk at ever closer political union’.
Does he have qualms about upsetting the prime minister? Baron: ‘None whatsoever. What I am trying to do is nudge the party closer to the electorate. That’s what we have done, actually … A week ago we didn’t have party support for any legislation, and a week ago we had no sight of a bill. Now we have got both. And that is progress, in my view because it more closely follows what the electorate wants’. So what would convince him to vote for the UK to stay in the EU? Baron: ‘Instead of getting bogged down in detail, I say: let’s see what he comes back with. But, you know, he is going to be up against it. Having said that, I wish him well’ (Observer).
‘Deal with it: a dose of Hague common sense amid the Tory turmoil on Ukip and Europe’ (Sunday Telegraph page 17) – Interview with Foreign Secretary, who accuses the Lib Dems of being ‘inconsistent’ on supporting an in/out referendum and says their commitment at the last election ‘was only ever a device’. Hague describes Ukip as a ‘fringe party’ who do not have ‘the remotest agenda for practical govt’ and rules out at sort of pact with them. Hennessy notes that at one point, when talking about the achievements of the Cameron administration, Hague uses a Labour verbal construction, referring to the ‘Conservative-led govt’ (Sunday Telegraph).
Gay marriage
‘Ministers defy PM on gay marriage’ (Sunday Times page 2) – ‘Tories’ new gay marriage row’ (Sunday Mirror page 8) – Cameron is facing further humiliation over the gay marriage bill this week as more than 150 Tory MPs, including cabinet ministers, prepare to vote for a series of amendments watering down the proposal and protecting “conscientious objectors”. Paterson is to defy ministerial convention and join MPs voting for a series of amendments that would permit teachers, faith schools and registrars to opt out of marrying gay men and lesbians. Hayes is also planning to back the amendments. In a last-ditch attempt to see off the rebellion, ministers have signalled that they plan to introduce measures to make it clear that teachers with a personal objection would not have to promote it in schools.
Likewise, registrars would be able to opt out of marrying same-sex couples in town halls unless there was a staff shortage that could lead to weddings being cancelled. The compromises are being worked out in behind-the-scenes negotiations and may lead to govt amendments being introduced in the Lords in the coming weeks. The govt also wants to see off a Tory amendment allowing people to criticise gay marriage without fear of being prosecuted. At least 30 chairmen and former chairmen of local Conservative associations have called on Cameron to ditch the bill because, they claim, it is ‘driving voters to UKIP’. A number of ministers, including Paterson and Grayling, are expected to vote for the amendments, tabled by ministerial aide David Burrowes, protecting religious schools and conscientious objectors. Government sources told Woolf/Grimston/Oakeshott that they were ‘in listening mode’ and were trying to find ways of seeing off a rebellion. But rebels said they wanted ‘clear assurances’ that the govt would give way to allow objectors to gay marriage to opt out (Sunday Times)
‘Why I am ignoring the hate to make a stand for marriage’ (Sunday Telegraph page 2) – Ordinary Tories cannot understand why the leadership is being distracted by the issue of gay marriage, and are being treated as “pariahs” for expressing their doubts about a change in the law, says David Burrowes (Sunday Telegraph) … ‘Say it loud: we’re proud of gay marriage’ (Sunday Times op-ed) – Herbert says the Commons vote this week will send a powerful message around the world and praises the leadership shown by Cameron on the issue (Sunday Times) … ‘Marriage is about joy, whatever your gender’ (Independent on Sunday op-ed) – Cooper says this bill is no embarrassment to be rushed through: it is a cause for celebration which she hopes MPs from across the Commons will feel proud to pass. She challenges those, like Hammond, who say this will also redefine heterosexual marriage to explain how a gay couple throwing confetti at their wedding will change hers. Cooper is dismissive of the argument that this bill takes up too much Parliamentary time, pointing out the government has given MPs 19 days of recess in the last two months (Independent on Sunday).
‘Boris aides ‘misled’ court’
(Sunday Telegraph page 10) – Officials working for the Mayor of London have been accused of misleading a court after it emerged the politician personally intervened to ban a Christian group’s controversial poster campaign (Sunday Telegraph).
Osborne
‘Sir Mervyn King attacks Osborne plan to boost housing market’ (Sunday Telegraph online) – ‘Non-Brits get tax help to buy home’ (Sun page 20) – Sir Mervyn King has warned that there was ‘no place in the long run’ for Osborne’s Help to Buy scheme, which will guarantee up to 15% of mortgages on properties worth up to £600,000 from next January. The governor fears that the scheme could leave taxpayers exposed to billions of pounds worth of private mortgage debt. Sir Mervyn: ‘This scheme is a little too close for comfort to a general scheme to guarantee mortgages.
We had a very healthy mortgage market with competing lenders attracting borrowers before the crisis, and we need to get back to that healthy mortgage market. We do not want what the United States have, which is a government-guaranteed mortgage market – and they are desperately trying to find a way out of that position. So, we mustn’t let this scheme turn into a permanent scheme. When is the right time to terminate it will depend on economic conditions at the time’. The Treasury said Help to Buy would ‘support home buyers and home building’. A spokes: ‘The mortgage guarantee scheme will provide much needed help for people who can’t afford a big deposit to get a mortgage’ (Sunday Telegraph).
Ed’s response to the Queen’s speech, which sets out the government’s legislative priorities is below:
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to those who have died in Afghanistan since we last met.
Corporal William Thomas Savage and Fusilier Samuel Flint, both from The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland.
And Private Robert Murray Hetherington from 51st Highland, 7th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland.
They died on patrol, serving our country and remind us all of the dangers our troops face day in day out across Afghanistan.
They showed the utmost courage and our thoughts are with their family and friends.
Let me also repeat from this side of the House that we support our mission in Afghanistan and also the timetable for withdrawal of our troops
who have given such extraordinary service to our country.
As is customary, I would like to pay tribute to those Members of this House who have died since the last Queen’s Speech.
Sir Stuart Bell was the son of a miner. He became a lawyer and then represented Middlesbrough for nearly 30 years. He was a kind decent man, passionate about Europe and served with distinction as a Church Commissioner.
For those members who want to read about his years in the House he also wrote an autobiography.
Tongue-in-cheek, it was called “Tony Really Loves Me”.
Mr Speaker, at times, I know exactly what he meant.
We have also lost Malcolm Wicks.
Malcolm was one of the deepest thinkers in this House, a brilliant Minister and one of the nicest people you could meet.
He faced his illness with the utmost bravery.
And right to the end he was passionate about his constituency, his politics, and his country.
Both Stuart and Malcolm are sorely missed by us all, as well as by their family and friends.
Let me turn to the proposer and seconder of the loyal address.
The proposer, the Honourable Member for Mid Worcestershire did so with great skill, wit and drew on the experience of his twenty years in this House.
The Honourable Member has decided to stand down from parliament.
He will be remembered, certainly by me, and I’m sure by others, for his courteousness and decency.
He is also to be congratulated for a campaign he has just launched, based on a long interest of his: to inspire more young people to take up careers in engineering and technology.
It has cross-party support and deserves to do so.
The Honourable Member has always been on the moderate, now the unfashionable, wing of the Conservative Party, working for Lord Walker and Sir Edward Heath before entering this House.
It was that voice of moderation that on Friday sought to find a third way as far as the Conservative response to UKIP is concerned.
He tweeted, and this is original Mr Speaker, “I hold clowns in high regard and respect their role…”
He shares a name with another prominent figure in public life.
The other Peter Luff.
The long-time chairman of the pro-European Movement.
So exasperated did the Honourable Member become by the attacks from angry Eurosceptics that he signed one letter:
“Peter Luff MP for Mid Worcestershire and NOT the Peter Luff who used to run the European Movement – he’s somebody else (and he’s) about two years older than me!”
Unfortunately the gist of the reply was:
‘Dear Peter, we are well aware of the existence of two Peter Luffs. And we don’t like either of you.’
Today, there could be no confusion as to his identity.
He performed his role uniquely well.
Let me turn to the seconder, the Honourable Member for Bristol West.
Despite being elected eight years ago, he will be pleased to hear that today, by tradition of the gracious speech, he occupies the role of young, rising star.
That is certainly his pedigree.
He was a councillor at 26, leader of the Liberal Democrats in Bristol aged 28.
He was the first openly gay Liberal Democrat MP, and he spoke incredibly movingly in the debate on same sex marriage earlier this year.
He was surely right when he said: “Equality is not something that can be delivered partially-equality is absolute.”
He has also, according to his website, chosen to use the power of Parliament to campaign on other important issues, including the use of consultants to avoid tax by multinational firms.
And it turns out he’s very well qualified to do this.
Because what was his job before entering this House?
He was a tax consultant to multinational firms.
To be fair, he has never been afraid to take on his opponents.
He was once confronted by angry protesting students outside his office before the top-up fees vote.
But he didn’t hide away, he took up the megaphone, looked the crowd directly in the face, and in true Liberal Democrat style, told them he hadn’t yet decided how he was going to vote.
Today, he spoke very well, and I am sure he will be pleased to hear that after listening to his speech I am happy to add my endorsement to his prospects for ministerial office.
And while I’m paying compliments Mr Speaker, I won’t let this day pass without paying a tribute to the most successful football manager the world has ever seen.
A great supporter of the Reds you might call him. Sir Alex Ferguson, phenomenally talented at his job, winner of thirteen championships, who can teach us all about team work and dedication.
That takes me to the question that must be asked about this Gracious Speech.
Whether it is equal to the scale of challenge our country faces?
Whether it matches the scale of disillusionment about the direction of the country we all heard during these county council elections?
The real lesson of UKIP’s vote, and the two-thirds of people who didn’t vote in these elections, is a deep sense that the country is not working for them.
They see a country where things are getting worse not better.
One million young people looking for work.
Low growth, falling wages and squeezed living standards.
So does the Government understand the difficulties the people of Britain face?
The signs aren’t good.
At the weekend they sent out the Foreign Secretary.
He told us that the elections had “sent a clear message to the Government”.
But his answer was, and I quote, “to shout louder” about their achievements.
In other words, it’s a version of the old tune:
The Government has a communications problem.
No Mr Speaker, the Government has a reality problem.
And all the twists and turns with UKIP:
Insulting them, ignoring them, imitating them won’t work while that remains the case.
This gracious speech was their chance to answer.
It should have contained:
Action to get our young people working again.
Action for real banking reform.
Action to get growth moving.
And action to genuinely confront the cost of living crisis.
But it fails on all counts.
The country has big problems, but this Queen’s Speech has no answers.
They may have legislated for five years in office, but they’re out of ideas after three.
Think of the young people we all met during this election campaign.
Imagine what they feel looking for a job in the Britain of 2013.
And think how their families feel when they can’t find one.
Britain cannot afford to waste their talents.
The Prime Minister promised change but things have got worse not better.
There are now four times more young people claiming benefits for more than a year than when the work programme was introduced.
And what does this gracious speech offer to those young people?
Absolutely nothing.
No change.
Where is the job guarantee for Britain’s young people?
And where are the rules tying government contracts to providing apprenticeships?
We will support the Government on High Speed Two.
But when the Government’s handing out the contracts to get this line built, why doesn’t it require companies to take on apprentices?
That would be good for young people.
Good for business.
And good for our country.
That is rights and responsibilities in action.
Next the banks.
We all meet many small businesses.
And we all hear the same story.
They put in the hours, they take the risks.
But the banks make life harder, not easier, for them.
The Prime Minister promised change but things have got worse not better.
Small businesses don’t need to be told that lending to businesses is falling month on month.
They know it.
It fell again by £4.8 billion in the three months to February.
And no one listening today will be given any hope that anything will be different now.
The Banking Commission called for a clear ultimatum to Britain’s banking system.
Change the culture, deliver for business, or we will break high street from casino banking across the board.
They called for an answer.
And what have we got:
Another fudge from the Chancellor, that the Banking Commission says does not go far enough.
And a Banking Bill that also fails to deliver a regional banking system that will deliver for British businesses, not rip them off.
On living standards, we all met so many people in this campaign struggling to get by.
At least now the Government acknowledges there’s a living standards crisis in this country.
But there is no real action to tackle it in the speech today.
The Prime Minister promised change but things have got worse not better.
The Government tries to tell people they’re better off.
But they know the reality: they’re worse off.
Wages down £1,700 since the election.
With tax and benefit changes hitting families by an average of £891.
There is one group that is better off.
The people sitting opposite on the Government front bench.
From the millionaires’ tax cut.
No wonder the Right Honorable Member for Haltemprice and Howden says this is a Government that looks “privileged and out of touch”.
He says: “Please please no more old Etonian advisers.”
I think he’s right.
It’s time for some diversity.
Let’s have someone from Harrow.
Now perhaps the Prime Minister will follow the advice of the Work and Pensions Secretary.
If wealthy pensioners are meant to be handing back their Winter Fuel Payments, why doesn’t he set an example and hand back the tax cut he’s given himself?
The Big Society in action.
For everyone else this speech has no answers.
No action on train fares, on payday loans, and on private pension charges.
And no real reform that breaks the dominance of the big six energy companies.
On housing we all know the difficulties families are facing, because for all the press notices from this Government, homes just aren’t being built.
The Prime Minister promised change but things have got worse not better.
Housing completions are now at their lowest level since the 1920s.
And since this lot came to power, 89,000 construction workers have lost their jobs.
No answers to Britain’s housing crisis.
Now on immigration, this clearly was an issue that many people raised during the campaign.
On the proposals they make, these are limited measures that they have announced before.
And they fail to tackle the issues of jobs and pay at the heart of people’s concerns:
Those employers who use cheap labour, through both illegal and legal migrants, to exploit and undercut workers already here.
By not paying the minimum wage.
Through recruitment agencies only using overseas labour.
And with slum landlords using overcrowded housing.
There is nothing on any of these measures in this Bill.
And why?
Because this Government’s whole economic approach is based on a race to the bottom in wages and conditions.
We will seek to amend the bill to take action to deal with these problems.
None of this will solve the growth crisis the country faces.
Even the Chancellor must recognize that having forecast six per cent growth over the last two and a half years, one per cent isn’t good enough.
When you look at what’s happening to our young people and our businesses, the squeeze on living standards, it is his failure that is the explanation.
Instead of fighting to stop the IMF telling him to change course, he should follow their advice and do so.
They’re not a Government with the answers for the British public in this Gracious Speech.
Instead as always they stand up for the wrong people.
From the people who brought you the millionaires’ tax cut, here’s the latest instalment.
This is what they used to say about cigarette packaging:
“It’s wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets … children should be protected from the start.”
That was the previous Health Secretary.
Before they hired their new strategist.
The one whose company worked for big tobacco.
And now what’s happened?
They’ve dropped the bill.
This is what the Prime Minister used to say about lobbying: it was “the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
That was before the scandal happened.
To him.
Dinners for donors in Downing Street.
And now what’s happened?
They’ve dropped the bill.
And on the communications bill he had a chance to tackle powerful media monopolies.
That brought him Andy Coulson and Rebekah Brooks.
And now what’s happened?
What a surprise.
They’ve dropped the bill.
With such a short programme, he can hardly say there wasn’t room for these.
It’s not a timetabling problem.
It’s a problem of whose side he’s on.
He can’t provide the direction the country needs because he stands up for the wrong people.
And let me say to him, if his excuse is it’s because of the people behind him that he’s dropped these bills we’ll help him.
If he wants a bill on cigarette packaging – we’ll help him get it through.
If he wants a communications bill – we’ll help him get it through.
If he wants a bill on lobbying – we’ll help him.
He can’t provide the answers the country needs, because he’s lost control of his party.
Or as someone once said:
He’s in office but not in power.
What is his party spending their time talking about?
Not youth unemployment.
Not the NHS.
Not the living standards crisis we face.
But the one subject they’re obsessing about day in day out.
UKIP.
The Honourable Member for Wellingborough has characteristically led the charge.
It’s time to stop insulting UKIP he says.
Instead he wants an electoral pact with them.
The Honourable Member for Mid-Somerset has gone further.
He wants a coalition right now with UKIP.
Mr Speaker, they used to call them clowns.
Now they want to join the circus.
But I think his MPs forget something:
The whole point of the Prime Minister’s Europe speech in January was to ‘head off UKIP’.
Tory MPs were crowing that the UKIP fox had been shot.
It was job done.
Mission accomplished.
Only it wasn’t.
The lesson for the Prime Minister is you can’t out-Farage Farage
Banging on about Europe won’t convince the public.
And the people behind him will just keep coming back for more.
A Europe referendum tomorrow.
Drop same sex marriage.
The demands go on and on.
They will never be satisfied.
And every day he spends dealing with the problem behind him he’s not dealing with the problems facing the country.
No wonder this Queens speech has no answers.
Three wasted years.
Today another wasted chance.
A no answers Queen’s speech
From a tired and failing government.
Out of touch.
Out of ideas.
Standing up for the wrong people
And unable to bring the change this country needs.
