Premier Alex Scott tried to have it both ways in the run-up to Friday?s Throne Speech.

He and other Ministers said the Speech would lay out Government?s Social Agenda, which would revolutionise the way Bermuda was governed and would ensure that ?the haves will continue to have, and the have-nots will have more?.

All Government policies, he said, would now be set up through the framework of the Social Agenda. Having raised expectations, Mr. Scott then tried to play them down; he said this year?s Speech would only sow the seeds of a process which could take as long as ten years.

It appeared that having promised a great deal, Mr. Scott knew he could not deliver. This is all too typical of the PLP Government. The party tends to fall back on grandiose language in order to mask its paucity of measurable achievement.

Thus November 9, 1998 was not merely a change of government, it was a ?date with destiny?. It?s not enough for Finance Minister Paula Cox, who spoke at the PLP banquet on Saturday night, to be a good lawyer (which she is), she has to be a brilliant one.

The Social Agenda, therefore, could not just be a new direction for the Government, but would ?ensure that those who feel disenfranchised now, will have an opportunity to be full participants in, and beneficiaries of, the financial success of their country?. Having laid the groundwork, Mr. Scott and his Government needed to pass two tests in the Throne Speech.

The first was for the Government to finally show that it recognised the depth of social problems, especially with regard to crime, housing and health care. The second was to meet the expectations it had built up for the Social Agenda and to show the Emperor actually had clothes on.

To a great extent, the Speech passed the first test. If it was being judged solely on the merits of ?ordinary? Throne Speeches, this would be regarded as a reasonably successful one and certainly better than some of its predecessors from the last six years and earlier. It was certainly a vast improvement on the PLP?s empty and promise-free 2003 election platform.

The Speech finally tackled the housing problem, both by construction of prefabricated emergency housing, through renovations of Government buildings and, most importantly, by providing Customs duty breaks for developers providing affordable housing along the lines of Bermuda Homes for People.

On crime and punishment, it hiked penalties for drug offences at the same time that it attempted to improve rehabilitation of prisoners. It removed the ?death tax? on primary residences, a popular move, even though there was no indication of how the revenue shortfall would be made up, or even of how much revenue would be lost.

There were other measures for seniors, a host of ideas for helping the young, some attempts to improve access to health and promises to both increase the number of hotel beds and to make Bermuda a year-round tourism destination. Some of these ideas were sound, some were recycled from previous years (Government promised again to locate the mythical stock of derelict homes which will solve the housing shortage at one stroke), and a few are rather dubious, including the decision to effectively abolish the National Drugs Commission.

Many are sound but small ideas, like introducing financial aid for mature students and seniors health issues? forums, which are part and parcel of day to day governance. A few, like the wellness clinics for the elderly, were lifted directly from the United Bermuda Party?s 2003 platform.

Still, as a Throne Speech, it was a reasonable success. What it is not is the ground-breaking and far-reaching blueprint that was promised.

Once you strip away the grandiose and flowery language and get down to the nuts and bolts of programmes and policies, it?s mostly business as usual, of the kind that any government should be doing in day in and day out, and year in and year out. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It?s unlikely that most Bermudians want a revolution.

It?s a fair bet that they want public money to be handled prudently, they want those who cannot help themselves through no fault of their own to get assistance, they don?t want people to be forced to live on the street, they want better schools, good health care at a reasonable price, equal opportunities for success and honesty from their leaders.

That?s not too much to ask, and it would be better if the PLP stuck to that, rather than promising what they then fail to deliver.