Not a bad Queen's speech, just a remarkably vague one

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/04/queens-speech-politics-legislation

Version 0 of 1.

The less important something is, the more people tend to fight over it – so says Sayre's law.

The same goes for the coalition, it seems. Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have gone out of their way to lay claim to this year's Queen's speech, pitching to voters that it is either a Conservative or Liberal Democrat policy platform respectively.

Listening to the monarch lay out the goods on offer one was left wondering why either party leader should be so keen to take credit for such a meagre selection of bills.

There are some worthwhile measures, such as further action to reduce the burden of over-regulation on small businesses and new freedoms for pensioners to use their savings as they wish. But others seem unremarkable for such a big occasion. Given the opportunity to make Queen Elizabeth II say basically whatever you like, within the bounds of relevance and decency, whose first choice would be: "My government will reduce the use of plastic carrier bags"?

Labour, of course, has leapt straight on to the most simplistic attack. "There aren't many bills," they cry, "We introduced loads when we were in government!" This rather misses the point.

One of the many problems of the Blair and Brown years was Labour's obsession with using legislation as a form of press release. Huge numbers of acts were passed purely with an eye on the headlines, and with no regard for whether they were needed or would actually work.

As a result they over-promised, under-delivered and clogged the legal system with hundreds of poorly drafted new crimes that were already covered by existing, better legislation.

The last thing we need is a return to those bad old days – it is a troubling sign if Ed Miliband really believes that lots of laws is the key to good government.

Criticism is possible, but would require a more sensible approach. This wasn't an actively bad Queen's speech, it was simply a remarkably vague one. There is no identifiable message binding it together.

There is a good reason for that vagueness. In reality, these are uncharted – if boring – waters for British politics. The drab combination of coalition government and fixed-term parliaments has created a drawn-out standoff. The parties are starting to hoard good policies for their manifestos while blocking any last-ditch attempts by their partners to do anything they feel to be objectionable.

While in the past such an impasse would have led to a general election, instead we must all wait for another year. The relatively thin cloth of coalition must stretch to cover an even larger area.

Neither the government nor the opposition have come up with a clear idea of how the fifth year of a parliament should work in this new settlement.

Is it a period of implementation? Is it effectively a long general election campaign in which MPs are paid to spend most of their time in their constituencies? Is it a "zombie government", in which case, what is the alternative?

I am glad the Queen's speech wasn't a frantic attempt to legislate for legislation's sake. I would have liked it even more had it clearly stated that the remainder of the parliament is about getting on with the job.

The major elements of structural reform – localism, education, welfare changes – have been passed, and the task is now about getting the practicalities right.

That isn't glamorous, and it wouldn't appeal to Tony Blair's love of headlines, but that is precisely why it's necessary. It was an obsession with style over substance, of slogans rather than sound finances, that got us into a national mess in the first place.