The alternative King’s Speech imagined here begins from a simple premise: while there is much to welcome in the government’s actual programme, the moment calls for something bolder. What follows is a vision of how a government truly determined to put working people first might have set out its priorities — starting, above all, with shielding the public from the cost of living crisis.

Putting the Cost of Living First

The opening commitment of this alternative speech is unambiguous. The government would declare itself focused on winning back the trust of the British people by proving it stands with those working hard — or who have worked hard — simply to make ends meet.

To that end, legislation would be brought forward as an urgent priority, designed to protect the public from the fallout of global conflict and the rising cost of living that comes with it. The aim would be to bring down inflation and hold living standards steady.

The centrepiece would be a new role: a secretary of state for consumer protection, armed with real powers to step in where needed. Those interventions would include:

• A 12-month freeze on energy bills, beginning on 1 July.
• A windfall levy on excess oil and gas profits generated by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, used to pay for the energy intervention.
• Temporary, retrospective rent controls for an initial 12-month period, capping rent increases at no more than the rate of inflation — based on the September 2025 CPI figure and applying from 1 January 2026.

Building on the already-passed Renters Rights Act, this package would treat housing costs and energy costs as twin pressures that demand immediate, coordinated action.

A Humane Approach to Welfare Reform

The speech would not shy away from welfare reform — but it would frame it very differently. Rather than treating reform as a cost-cutting exercise, the government would commit to a sensitive and humane modernisation of the system, designed specifically to stop individuals and families from slipping into poverty.

The goal would be a system that fosters independence and self-reliance, transforming the lives of those in greatest need so that resources can be redirected from merely managing disadvantage toward genuinely ending it.

A key part of this would be implementing the Milburn and Timms reviews to help young people aged 16 to 24 who are not in employment, education, or training. Funding would come from the growth and skills levy on medium and large companies, alongside the levy on employers recruiting overseas labour — together topping up the £1bn already set aside for subsidising jobs and apprenticeships.

Housing, Infrastructure, and Social Care

The alternative programme would give absolute priority to preparing the country to build the 1.5 million homes promised in Labour’s manifesto, along with the infrastructure and rail projects laid out in the government’s growth strategy.

On social care, the government would act on the recommendations of Louise Casey’s report, reorganising the system and funding it properly. The principle here is dignity: ensuring older people who need support can receive it while striking a fair balance between protecting their lifetime savings and contributing to their own care, whether at home or in residential settings.

Reforming Government to Deliver

None of this works without a state capable of delivering it. The speech would therefore commit to reorganising the civil service — rewarding promotion and retention in the crucial areas of delivery, so that hard-won experience can actually be applied to implementing change.

There would also be a frank acknowledgement of fiscal reality. The government would maintain self-determined fiscal rules to reassure international markets and keep borrowing costs manageable. But it would also consider extending the period over which those rules apply, so that global turbulence doesn’t end up harming the public.

In a notably outward-looking move, the government would work with Commonwealth partners — Canada among them — to explore how substantial low-interest borrowing could fund defence and security. That includes the intriguing idea of a “rearmament bond,” allowing citizens themselves to invest directly in the nation’s safety.

Safer Communities and Police Reform

Recognising that security in the home and neighbourhood underpins a stable society, the speech would back the proposals in the police reform white paper and the independent police leadership commission review. The objective: a police service that is effective, modernised, and — crucially — trusted.

Education for a Changing World

The alternative programme would confront an uncomfortable truth: too many children still miss out on the educational opportunities the better-off take for granted.

The response would be twofold. Tough measures would root out failure in schools, while serious investment would flow into further education and lifelong learning. The reasoning is forward-looking — the nation needs to be equipped for a world reshaped by artificial intelligence and robotics, and the profound changes those technologies bring to work.

Schools and post-16 colleges would also teach citizenship and democracy in a modern, balanced, and strictly non-party-political way, protecting the values the country holds dear.

Pride in Place: Renewing Local Communities

Finally, the speech would accelerate and expand the Pride in Place programme, tying the renewal of local communities to the devolution of key parts of health and social care.

This is where the alternative vision becomes most concrete. It would involve:

• Abolishing NHS England, redirecting resources away from bureaucracy and commissioning and toward frontline delivery.
• Doubling the Pride in Place budget, so the £20m allocated to each deprived neighbourhood could be expanded.
• A genuine partnership between central government, local authorities, and residents — with local voices not just heard but actively brought into the process.

The Bottom Line

The thread running through this alternative King’s Speech is a fresh start: protecting people from immediate hardship while building the foundations for a more secure future. It is a programme aimed at winning back public trust and defending democracy itself — guarding against those who would offer false promises or chip away at the constitutional safeguards that have served Britain well for generations. Whether or not one agrees with every measure, it offers a clear answer to a question worth asking: what might a government do if it truly put working people first?