Until now, I’ve never seen Cameron as a radical who’d take on vested interests. Today I dare hope I underestimated him

ONLy three weeks ago it would have see med incredible that yesterday’s Queen’s Speech would emerge in the form it did — as an authentically Conservative programme for government.

David Cameron himself can scarcely have dreamt of the Tories ever being i n this position. His expectation — and conceivably his hope — must have been that, at best, another coalition with the Lib Dems c ould be cobbled together, and that they would insist on the removal of what they regarded as the most obnoxious pledges i n the Conservative Party manifesto.

But Nick Clegg is the defeated ex-leader of a pathetic rump of Lib Dems, while for the time being Labour has turned in on i tself as i t searches f or a plausible saviour. Mr Cameron miraculously finds himself with the world at his feet, finally able to act as a proper Tory leader.

Victory

Will he embrace the challenges before him as a great reforming prime minister in the mould of Margaret Thatcher, most notably after her election victories in 1983 and 1987? Or will he, like Tony Blair in 1997, promise a great deal and deliver disappointingly little?

Will he buckle under the strain of concerted opposition from numerous vested interests and a House of Lords in which the Tories are in a minority, as well from as an antagonistic BBC, or will he stand his ground? And like John Major after the Tories’ narrow victory in 1992, will he be constantly harried and undermined by rebellious backbench Conservative MPs?

The 26 Bills in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech certainly constitute the most radical plans we have seen for at least 18 years. The most revolutionary of all, the EU Referendum Bill, was entirely expected, but no less valuable for that.

Of course, everything hangs on t he t erms which Mr Cameron manages to extract from our European partners. The question proposed for the ballot paper seems to be weighted in favour of continued EU membership. We should never forget just how potentially transformative this referendum could be.

Barely less far-reaching is the Full Employment and Welfare Benefits Bill, which will contain the first measures — for example, a reduction in the annual welfare cap from £26,000 to £23,000 — in a plan to reduce the cost of welfare (currently running at some £210 billion a year) by £12 billion.

The Trade Unions Bill will include a 50 per cent voting threshold f or union strike ballot turnouts, and a requirement that 40 per cent of those entitled to vote must back action in essential services. Trade union members will have to opt into (rather than, as present, out of) paying a levy to the Labour Party. These changes amount to the most significant curbing of trade union power since 1983.

Also welcome is the Immigration Bill, which will include the new offence of illegal working, enabling police to seize wages paid to illegal workers as the ‘ proceeds of crime’. This is all well and good so long as the Government realises that further changes will be necessary if the net annual immigration figure is to be brought down appreciably from over 300,000.

Other sensible measures include further devolution to Scotland and Wales, which can hardly be resisted, and increased autonomy for some English cities. There is also a promise to reduce red tape (wonderful, if it ever happens) and a blanket ban on drugs offering ‘legal highs’.

However, one piece of idiocy which can’t be ignored is a Bill to outlaw increases in income tax rates, VAT or National Insurance before 2020. Why couldn’t an undertaking suffice? And what will happen if the world economy implodes again?

Disturbing omissions include an undertaking to maintain defence expenditure at 2 per cent of GDP, and a British Bill of Rights, which has been kicked into at least the next session. Admittedly it is a devilishly c o mplex and contentious issue, and postponement may well be prudent, but to avoid the imputation of funk the Government should have explained its thinking with greater candour.

All in all, though, this is an impressive Tory programme such as many of us doubted we’d ever hear from a Government led by David Cameron. That said, it is one thing setting out your stall in politics, quite another to translate even well-laid plans into action.

Labour and Lib Dem peers in the Lords will try to scupper many of these Bills, especially those proposing trade union, welfare and immigration reform. Consider the hullabaloo there has already been over plans to replace the Human Rights Act, with a gallery of misguided actors and activists shrieking that our very freedoms are at risk.

Mr Cameron can hardly create 200 peers at a stroke to redress the electoral imbalance in the Lords. But he can insist that Opposition peers observe the so-called Salisbury Convention, which dates back to 1945, whereby the second chamber won’t oppose the second or third reading of any government l egislation promised in i ts el ection manifesto. That covers pretty well the entire Queen’s Speech.

Mandate

It can’t be said too often that the Conservatives won an electoral mandate and they have a right to expect that if their legislation passes through the Commons, it will not be endlessly frustrated by tumultuous Opposition peers acting in a fundamentally undemocratic manner.

And that concept of a mandate should also be understood by the BBC which, at least until Labour reconstitutes itself, is likely to appoint itself the main critic of Tory plans. Already I hear in its news reports words such as ‘controversial’ attached to policies which won favour with the electorate even if they don’t g o down well in Broadcasting House.

The BBC should try to remember that its remit is to hold all politicians to account, not to behave as Her Majesty’s Opposition. And it shouldn’t forget that its own privileged position as a public service broadcaster enjoined by law to be neutral comes up for review next year.

David Cameron will simply have to face down unruly peers and a sniping state broadcaster in a way that does not come naturally to such an emollient man. Equally, he is bound to face dissent from Tory backbenches over a British Bill of Rights when it is eventually introduced, and in due course over Europe. The Government’s slim majority obviously makes him vulnerable.

Robust

The question is whether he will turn out to be a Margaret Thatcher, who thrived on a good scrap, or a John Major, who was gradually worn down by his critics, especially in his own party, and the ill-luck that befalls most l eaders. It is certain that coalition has not prepared David Cameron for the convulsions and confrontations that lie ahead.

yet here is a robust set of policies on which he has staked his reputation. Perhaps against his own instincts and deepest wishes, he finds himself cast in the role of a radical Tory Prime Minister with genuinely Tory policies.

He can, like Margaret Thatcher in 1983 and 1987, steadfastly f ollow what is bound to be a sometimes perilous and lonely path. Or, like Tony Blair on so many occasions after 1997, he can accommodate his (domestic) enemies, avoid the big fights, and settle for half measures.

Which will it be? I confess that in all the years since he became Tory leader in 2005 I have never seen David Cameron as a radical who would battle against vested interests. After listening to the Queen’ s Speech, I am wondering for the first time whether I might be wrong.