News | Thursday, 22nd June 2017

Manchester Metropolitan academics react to the Queen's speech

Experts in politics, education policy and counter-extremism give their thoughts on Wednesday's address

Manchester Metropolitan University academics have cast their expert eye over the 2017 Queen's speech.

Most notable was what was omitted from the Conservative party's manifesto after the shock General Election result, and also how a hung parliament could negotiate Brexit.

The announcement of a commission for countering extremism and a review of the govenrment's counter-terrorism strategy in light of the terror attacks in Manchester and London were also key highlights from the address.

Dr Jonathan Savage, Reader in Education and expert in education policy, said:

"The Government has pledged to deliver ‘fair funding for schools’ in the Queen’s speech today. However, other key education manifesto pledges have been dropped and do not feature in the speech. Notably, these include ending the ban on grammar schools and scrapping free school lunches. Both of these potential policies are now dead in the water. 

"Many commentators and policy experts believe that the Government’s plans to press ahead with their ‘fair funding’ proposals are going to be met by continued opposition from Conservative MPs. More than 9000 schools in England are expecting to lose funding. Those that expect to see an increase in funding will see those benefits whittled away by real-term funding cuts.

"The Conservative’s manifesto commitment to “make sure no school has its budget cut as a result of the new formula” does not appear in the proposed legislative framework.

"The Queen’s speech also outlined the Government’s plans for technical education, with a promised investment of a £500m and the formation of new Institutes of Technology."

Dr Gavin Bailey, Research Associate with the Policy Evaluation and Research Unit, said:

"After several incidents of terrorist violence, it is understandable that the government wants to show that something is being done. As is often the case it is being presented as a step-change, as a new beginning, even if much is extension of previous activity.

"If we see a bill in the next two years, we should expect it to incorporate the work done in 2016. A similar bill was promised in last year’s Queen’s speech, but seems to have got stuck on definitions of non-violent extremism (violent extremism being easier to define). Drawing the line between problematic words and actions to be prosecuted or at least discouraged, and free speech and freedom of conscience, has always been difficult. The proposal for a ‘commission for countering extremism’ could well be part of this, building on the select committee inquiry that ran over 2015-6.

"With a definition or not, and with more or less restrictive policing of non-violent extremism, we are still in the position that a large number of people talk the talk, but very few make the decision to actually do something. While the Queen’s speech talks of the ‘powers they need’, others, including senior police officers, are talking more about the need for resources. It seems that a great deal of data is gathered, but without skilled analysts to make accurate and timely assessments of threat the intelligence is not used to its potential."

Dr Rory Shand, Senior Lecturer in Politics and Public Services, said:

"The importance of what was not said yesterday is every bit as important as what was included. The key areas of Brexit and the jettisoning of key policies set out in the Conservative manifesto each show the Prime Minister is trying to demonstrate a listening approach, particularly aimed at younger voters who turned out in large numbers to vote for Jeremy Corbyn, but not it would seem at the financial sector, which has made it clear repeatedly that single market access should be a priority for government rather than a hard Brexit.

"In each of these cases, it is what is not being said that is as informative as what was contained in the speech. For example, the focus on Brexit set out the complexities of beginning the process of unravelling the UK from various aspects of EU legislation and multi-level governance arrangements through the Great Repeal Bill. Yesterday the Queen’s Speech outlined eight distinct bills in areas such as agriculture and customs. This process will be undoubtedly significantly lengthened by the need for Parliament to decide which pieces of legislation will remain in UK law.

"Moreover, little or nothing was mentioned regarding single market access; so we need to question how much this response is a listening one, and how much it negates criticisms from sections of both the Conservative and Labour parties who suggest the single market is vital in securing the UK’s future economic health. In terms of political context, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and Brexit Secretary David Davis have been touted as a potential leaders-in-waiting of the Conservative Party.

"May’s stance is, to a degree, reflective of this and also the recent election result. The Government now has far less mandate for a hard Brexit, and is in the midst of much criticism for the proposed relationship with the DUP. Additionally, both the Conservatives and Labour have significant differences of opinion within the respective parties, and the Liberal Democrats, who had positioned themselves as pro-EU membership and put forward a second referendum are in the process of electing a new leader. Such political instability does not favour the bold. There are presently too many things at stake and too many cards still waiting to fall."

More news