|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume 56 Number 16, May 30, 2026 | ARCHIVE | HOME | JBCENTRE | SUBSCRIBE |
The King's Speech of May 13 was presented as a programme to build a "stronger and fairer" Britain [1]. As usual, the language is revealing precisely because of what it conceals. "Strength" is presented as the strengthening of society, when in fact the programme strengthens the machinery of the state. "Fairness" is presented as concern for working people, when in fact it is tied to market stability, investment conditions and the demand that the people submit to the requirements of "security", "resilience" and "growth".
The legislative programme, containing 37 bills and draft measures, centres on energy independence, national security, infrastructure, public administration and regulatory reform. Taken as a whole, it is not a programme for democratic renewal or for the recognition and guarantee of the rights of all. It is a programme for the consolidation of state capacity in the service of market stabilisation, strategic industry protection, and expanded security powers.
Major social questions are posed as a question of security. Energy is "energy security", industry is "economic security", immigration is "border security", digital systems are "cyber security". What is missing is the conception that security lies in defending the rights of all, changing the direction of the economy, increasing investments in social programmes, and stopping the militarisation of economic and political life.
The Energy Independence Bill is presented as legislation to scale up home-grown renewable energy and protect living standards. The accompanying measures include Exchequer funding for 75% of the domestic costs of the Renewables Obligation scheme for three years, a Warm Homes Agency, and rules requiring landlords to invest in home upgrades. These measures are presented as relief for households, but the decisive issue is the direction of the economy. The state is intervening to underwrite energy transition in a manner that stabilises the operating environment for industry and finance. The question of who owns, controls and benefits from energy production is not addressed from the standpoint of the people.
The Electricity Generator Levy Bill is similarly presented as a means to break the link between electricity prices and gas prices, encouraging eligible generators to accept voluntary long-term fixed-price contracts while raising the levy rate from 45% to 55% from July 1. The talk is of fairness and price stability, but the mechanism is one of managing the terms under which energy generators operate, not vesting control over energy in the people. The Nuclear Regulation Bill follows the same logic, streamlining regulation to support new nuclear generation.
A marked feature of the Speech is the expansion of the security, cyber-regulatory and state-threat apparatus. The Tackling State Threats Bill gives the government new powers to specify organisations, including foreign state entities and proxies, said to be involved in espionage, sabotage, interference or other threats to Britain. The National Security Bill, linked to the Southport attack, criminalises the creation and sharing of the most harmful violent material where it glorifies, trivialises or normalises serious violence, and also contains measures on mass-casualty attack planning, cyber law and state-threat sentencing.
This is the familiar method, where a shocking incident is used to broaden the reach of the state. Material that "glorifies", "trivialises" or "normalises" serious violence becomes subject to new criminal prohibitions. Such terms are not merely technical. Though the government claims the violent-material offence will protect freedom of expression and legitimate public-interest activity, the measures impact the right to conscience, speech, journalism, political opinion and the ability of people to discuss the causes of violence, war, oppression and resistance without fear of arbitrary state action. This is especially relevant in the present conditions where support of the Palestinian people against genocide is increasingly suppressed by mis-identifying it as "anti-semitism".
The Courts and Tribunals Bill removes defendants' ability to elect Crown Court trial in specified either-way cases, extends magistrates' sentencing powers, introduces a permission stage for appeals, and creates judge-alone modes of trial for complex fraud and financial cases. These measures are framed as ways to address backlogs and increase efficiency. But efficiency is the watchword of the present trend toward open rule by police powers.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill continues this direction. It is presented as legislation to increase confidence in the security of the immigration and asylum systems. It defines when protection can be revoked, takes further measures on small-boat crossings, and requires asylum seekers receiving taxpayer-funded accommodation and support to contribute to the cost once able to do so. The right to asylum is not affirmed. The dignity and humanity of immigrants are not the starting point. The starting point is enforcement.
Where market failure threatens strategic capacity, especially in steel, energy and rail, the state reserves the right to intervene. But this is not a break with the capital-centred direction of the economy. The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill creates a route for the government to nationalise steel companies or operations, including British Steel, where a public-interest test is met. The aim of this potential nationalisation is to preserve an operating environment for monopolies, supply chains and military-industrial needs. It is not about recognising the claims of workers, communities and the whole society on production, and furthermore goes against the interests of the Chinese conglomerate Jingye Group who acquired British Steel in 2020.
The High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill, Highways (Financing) Bill, and Railways and Passenger Benefits Bill show the same model, where the state co-ordinates long-term infrastructure, establishes Great British Railways, supports Northern Powerhouse Rail and creates new regulatory structures, while it constructs financing models to draw private capital into public infrastructure. The chronic and obvious failure of the water monopolies to guarantee a properly functioning water supply infrastructure to all as of right is reflected in the Clean Water Bill, which creates a Water Ombudsman and a new integrated water regulator. But the issue of water as a right, and of the people's control over such a basic necessity, is left outside the framework.
Over and above these measures sits the programme of capital-centred "growth" and "investment". The Regulating for Growth Bill strengthens the Growth Duty and creates sandbox powers for firms to test technologies and scale them faster. Competition and financial services reforms aim to make investigations, lending and regulation more predictable and investment-friendly. Where markets fail in strategic sectors, the state intervenes. Where private capital is expected to deliver investment and growth, regulation is made more enabling.
The people are told that this is fairness. But fairness here means that markets are stabilised, investors reassured, public assets protected for private participation, and the population disciplined through security, administrative reform and the language of responsibility.
The Representation of the People Bill lowers the voting age to 16, broadens accepted voter ID, pilots automated registration, tightens donation rules and gives the Electoral Commission stronger enforcement powers. But the problem of democracy is not solved by administrative changes to elections. The crisis is that the people are excluded from power.
Likewise, the Public Office (Accountability) Bill introduces the Hillsborough Law and a duty of candour, while housing, education and digital-access measures respond to real problems. But they remain framed as a problem of delivery, or "deliverology". Housing is not posed as a right which society must guarantee. Education is not posed as empowering teachers, parents, children and communities to determine its direction. Digital access is not posed from the standpoint of people's control over data and public services.
The King's Speech reveals a state active where it secures infrastructure, markets, borders, public administration and strategic industries. It is not a small-state programme. Nor is it a programme of public authority in the service of the people. It is a programme of state intervention as demanded by powerful private interests at this time.
The working class needs its own independent programme. It must judge the whole programme from its own standpoint: does it defend the rights of all, or does it strengthen police powers and the oligarchs? Does it empower the people, or does it perfect the machinery through which they are governed? The answer given by this King's Speech is clear. It is a programme of police powers, state intervention and an assault on rights.
The working class and people must advance their own alternative: stop paying the rich; increase investments in social programmes; defend the rights of all; oppose the anti-immigrant, pro-war and security-state direction; and fight for an anti-war government. The necessity is to renew democracy so that sovereignty is vested in the people themselves.
Notes
1. The King's Speech 2026, published May 13, 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-kings-speech-2026
2. The Hillsborough Law is named after the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, where 97
Liverpool supporters died, and after the long campaign by families against
official cover-up, delay and institutional defensiveness. Amongst its measures,
it would create a statutory duty of "candour, transparency and
frankness" when dealing with inquiries, and create offences for misleading
the public or serious misconduct. A point of contention has been how far the
duty should apply to intelligence and security agencies, which relates in turn
to the ongoing Undercover Policing Inquiry and its shocking revelations.
See: "UK pauses Hillsborough transparency law after row over exemptions
for spies", Alistair Smout, Reuters, January 19, 2026
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-pauses-hillsborough-transparency-law-after-row-over-exemptions-spies-2026-01-19