Last week was the second Queens speech and as usually happens after a Queens speech the politicians participate in a number of discussions, some of which are more incompetent than others. Two of the men who took part chose to criticise the Labour Party that was in Power from 1997 to 2010 which was a 13 year period and claimed that they were about to introduce some legislation that in their view should have been introduced back between 1997 – 2010 and yet for some reason both of these men appeared to be acting as if they have only just got into power. If we were currently in 2011 that may have been understandable as they would have only been in power over the last year and in that time had taken on a number of themes that they felt were lacking in our nation. However the reality is that these two chaps are both members of a political party that has been running our nation since 2010 and now we are in 2021 and so they have had 11 years to deal with a massive range of themes. To now claim that they and their colleagues are competent even though their Labour opposition party was incompetent to not deal with these same subjects in the 13 years is starting to look very weird. Indeed one could argue that some very positive elements were introduced between 1997 – 2010 along with inevitably a range of problems. So anyway here are the words that took place last week. The first was from Boris Johnson who was speaking after the speech and after Peter Kyle had asked him a question. The question came out here

Perhaps the Prime Minister can answer this. In the last three Tory manifestos and every humble Address since 2016, his Government have promised a victims Bill. It is in the Humble Address again, and we are grateful for that. Will he assure us that it will be delivered this year? It has not been published, and there are no details of what will be in it. We hear rumours that it will just put a code of conduct on to statute, but will he promise that he will take the Labour approach of going much further, empowering victims, giving rights to victims that are enforceable by law, and that there will be consequences for those in the criminal justice system who do not uphold them? Will he promise that?

This clearly irritated the Prime Minister and the first half of his response was as follows

We will not only stick up for victims for the first time, which Labour failed to do in all its years in office, just as it failed to do anything at all about social care—Labour Members berate the Government about social care, but they did nothing at all during 13 years in office. We will take the interests of victims to heart, and we will address that matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also support our proposals to increase sentences for serious sexual and violent offenders, which he voted against. I hope that Labour will also support our proposal to double the maximum sentence for assaults on emergency workers.

The second half had nothing to do with that rather strange element and so I have not repeated it here. However the whole piece can be obtained from here. Moving on 24 hours Andrew Griffith who is the MP for Arundel and South Downs was speaking on Wednesday. These are some of the words he used

There is so much to welcome and so much ambition, yet I have so little time to welcome, on behalf of the constituents of Arundel and South Downs, what was in Her Majesty’s Speech yesterday. There were tougher sentences for dangerous drivers; fairer immigration; an ambitious environment Bill to clean our air, purify our rivers and boost biodiversity; and, for so many people, the lifetime skills guarantee, giving them a second chance at a first-class life.

Let me conclude on a subject that Her Majesty mentioned that I am very passionate about. We can all be proud that Britain is a world leader on climate action. While some Opposition Members talk about the climate emergency, we are getting on and solving it. We were the first to put a 2050 net zero target into law, and our target of a 68% reduction on our 1990 emissions is one of the most ambitious of any country on the planet.

It is clear that the first decade of the 21st Century should have had a focus on climate change but if Andrew is claiming that the third decade of the 21st Century is when these issues will be handled as the opposition should have dealt with in the first decade, he appears to be ignoring the lack of provision during the last decade which is when his Party was running our nation.