Speech from the Throne: Conservatives use Queen's Speech to try and rebrand their efforts in government

By way of the somewhat ludicrous annual spectacle of a grand procession to bring the sovereign to the House of Lords to read it out loud, the government has announced its legislative programme for the year.

The main drive of the 2016 Speech from the Throne was a big rebranding attempt by the government, even against the distracting backdrop of the impending referendum, to try and reframe its political agenda as a 'life chances strategy'. There where elements of it throughout the speech.

The speech featured a number of policy ideas that had already been announced. There was Help to Save, a government aided savings scheme for low paid workers that was announced by the Chancellor that is similar to a Labour scheme previously cancelled by the government. There was also the Chancellor's tax on sugary drinks, mention of infrastructure investment like broadband roll-out, the Northern Powerhouse local devolution project and the controversial push to a seven day NHS.

New announcements along the lines of 'life chances' included new measures to improve education for prisoners, overhauling the prison system to focus on how to give prisoners a second chance. The focus on a new strategy meant that other matters were pushed to one side.

Though bullishly promised, forced academisation seems to have slipped down the order and became a promise to ensure excellence in schools. Considering the negative reaction that the policy has received, it's absence is unsurprising.

More surprising perhaps is that the government has made no definitive move in its wrestle with the House of Lords. The lords has rebelled against government policy numerous times since the last election, yet the so called Sovereignty Bill was reduced to just a reference to a commitment to "uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons".

Of course, talk of austerity was pushed aside as well. No new measures were announced but the speech did include the now familiar claim that the government will "continue to bring public finances under control so Britain lives within its means".

Back in the Commons, the debate on the Speech was started by a Conservative backbencher who was perfectly on message, making sure to repeat the phrase 'life chances'.

Jeremy Corbyn, in his response, was sure to pick up on the theme of 'life chances'. He set about listing ways in which austerity has completely undermined any strategy to improve life chances - from the bedroom tax to cuts to disability allowances.

What is clear is that Cameron's circle is trying to reframe its time in government, digging up phrases like 'One Nation', to try and recast new policies like competition in higher education as improving 'life chances', even as 'progressive', through justifications like greater choice for consumers.

In the Commons today, Prime Minister David Cameron was at his most smugly comfortable at the heart the Westminster establishment on a day of extraordinary ritual and pageantry. He wielded the word progressive like he meant to claim it and rebrand it as well - a chilling signal of revisions to come.

True progressives need to be wary of these efforts. The Conservative media machine has proved itself very effective in the past, so it isn't hard to see them finding success pursuing a revision of history to emphasise, or de-emphasise, events as they see fit. The reality of hard times should not be forgotten by progressives and they should not let the reality of those times be lost in public debate.

A new realignment of the Left is underway and Proportional Representation and the Basic Income are at the core

In Castlefields arena, Natalie Bennett addresses protesters from many different movements, who came together in opposition to the Conservative government in Manchester last Autumn.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, Liberal and Liberal Democrat leaders Roy Jenkins, Paddy Ashdown and Charles Kennedy followed a course that sought to 'realign the Left' in Britain. Powered by the dominance of Thatcherite conservatism, it sought to change the approach of the left and ultimately lead to co-operation between progressive parties, in opposition to the Conservatives.

First through Liberal-Labour pacts, of which there is an even longer history, next through the breakaway SDP/Liberal Alliance, and then in the form of New Labour-Liberal Democrat talks and cooperation. And Kennedy's 'Real Alternative' campaign banner, even in opposition to a Labour government, reflected the general cohesion of aims on the Left, if not of methods.

That particular movement on the part of the Lib Dems ended with Nick Clegg's leadership. Clegg took the Liberal Democrats back to a policy of equidistance between the two big parties, Labour and the Conservatives.

However, the fall of the coalition and succession of a Conservative to a majority government seems to have triggered a new phase of realignment. The resignations of Clegg and Miliband led to the election of new party leaders, seen to be of very different stripes from their predecessors.

Tim Farron, the new Lib Dem leader, is a campaigning Northern MP and former Party President who stood aloof from, and in polite opposition to, the coalition. So far his efforts have been concentrated on focussing the Lib Dem fightback on the party's roots - in campaigning locally for community issues and nationally on matters of conscience.

Jeremy Corbyn's election as Labour leader seemed to send shockwaves through British politics. Portrayed by the media as a move back to some Michael Foot and Tony Benn, 80s-esque, hard Left position, Corbyn has faced disquiet and malcontent within the Parliamentary party since taking over with a landslide of party members' votes.

After the last five years, the seemingly inevitable alignment of the Liberal Democrats and Labour was shattered. It would be understandable to think finding new common ground would be difficult or impossible between the party Clegg had taken to the Centre, even Centre-Right, and the party Corbyn has been accused of taking to the hard Left.

Yet a new realignment of the Left is under way and the policies that will define the shift are already emerging in the policy debates of both parties.

Both the Liberal Democrats and Labour now seem to be on the same page, finally, when it comes to proportional representation. Both Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, from Labour's Left, and Chuka Umunna, from Labour's Right, have expressed support for PR. And both parties are engaged in consultations over their future approach to policy, including the welfare system - debates in which the idea of a universal basic income is playing a prominent role.

Ahead of the EU referendum, Farron has even called for a progressive political alliance on Europe - making internationalism again a core value across progressive parties. That matches, in a limited way, the arguments that Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, has been making since the last election that progressive parties need to start working together.

As for the Green Party, in true Green fashion Natalie Bennett is following Caroline Lucas' lead in standing down as party leader once her term is up later this year. So who will lead the Greens through this new realignment, and how they will handle it on into the 2020 general election, is unknown.

But the challenge ahead of the three leaders of Britain's main progressive parties is clear: to stop the Conservatives winning their way to back-to-back governments. Aligning in support of some core common policies is a start.

The next step is to commit to the kind of cooperation on various campaigns and causes that can foster the good will between parties. That mutual respect will be needed to build a real electoral alliance, that stands together behind a limited set of core ideals in opposition to conservatism.

Progressives have a Senedd majority, but it counts for little when politics is reduced to partisan games and point-scoring

The Senedd, home of the National Assembly for Wales. Photograph: Senedd from Pixabay (License) (Cropped)

Following an election that left Labour one seat short of a majority, the Senedd sat down to vote in a new First Minister. A majority of votes was needed to appoint the new head of Wales' government, who was expected to be Labour leader, and current First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Instead, the Senedd was left in deadlock, 29 votes to 29 (BBC, 2016). Apparently disliking the attitude of the Labour leadership, Plaid Cymru put forward their own leader, Leanne Wood, for the post - a nomination that received the backing of both the Conservatives and the newly beseated UKIP.

It was a move that almost produced the upset of Leanne Wood, as leader of a party with just 11 seats of 60 in the Senedd, being nominated to the post of First Minister. Wood's rise on the back of Tory and UKIP support was stopped by, the now sole, Liberal Democrat Assembly Member Kirsty Williams.

Williams said she opposed the 'ragtag coalition' that included UKIP, and nominated Carwyn Jones because Labour where the only party given something approaching a governing mandate by the people (Williams, 2016).

Another vote, to try and break the deadlock, will take place next week, with negotiations ongoing in the mean time between Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party. However, the two parties have long been known to have a difficult relationship, seen not least in Plaid voting against a public health bill because a Labour minister had insulted them.

The decision was criticised by health unions, who called on the assembly to stop playing games with the nation's health (BBC, 2016{3}). Whether because of bad blood, or Plaid seeing an advantage in Labour's obviously weak position, the Senedd has been again reduced to games. Plaid might even be tempted, as negotiations continue, to keep exploiting the situation to extract policy concessions (Servini, 2016).

That would be a dangerous move. Reducing politics to a game, to scoring points, to a language of wins, gains and losses, undermines a fundamental reality - that politics is supposed to be about representation. The 'any method so long as we win' mentality also ignores our methods always have consequences.

That is an idea that George Osborne and the rest of the Conservative establishment failed to grasp during the London Mayoral election. Osborne was quoted as saying the Tories offensive negative campaign was just the 'rough and tumble' of 'robust democracy' (Sparrow, 2016).

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to 'govern from the centre'. Without even a robust internal debate (Kuenssberg, 2016), the Conservatives attempt to bully their policy through using whatever tactics suit them and with little testing or consensus-building.

To truly govern from the centre, means having proper respect for the democratic method (Urbinati, 1994):

"...the method of pursuing a political goal through free discussion by replacing force and imposed consent with dialogue and the search for consent... a pact of civility through which citizens and groups defend and develop their ideas - their diversity - without losing the attributes of their common humanity."

In Wales, progressive parties have been handed a comprehensive majority of votes and seats. That presents an opportunity for Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats to get to work on moving Wales forward over the next five years.

But first Labour and Plaid Cymru have to get past their differences. In refinding the capacity for civility, they may find a renewed progressive political strength and will - and through cooperation achieve far more than they might with petty divisive squabbles and cheap tactical gamesmanship.