Steady as she goes? Maybe, Mr Editor, maybe.

Certainly, Throne Speech 2015 didn’t contain any significant surprises — nothing that new and nothing that dramatic — and it struck me as all very matter-of-fact and straightforward in tone and content; very businesslike, in fact.

What is clear, very clear, is that the Government is pinning its electoral tail very much on the economy, specifically economic recovery. It remains the national priority, we were told. Repeatedly. Requisite, obligatory time was spent on the signs (GDP, retail index, construction projects) that tend to show Bermuda is in the midst of turning a wide corner on the right road.

The speech also confirmed once again the Government’s two-track strategy: growing the economy and imposing discipline on the public purse. All else supposedly falls in line behind, er, that line — or so it seems. Still there was room in the document for any number of planned initiatives, the usual grab bag of goodies that are likely to appeal and find broad support, some of the more notable examples of which were:

• The focus on seniors, and very early in the Speech, in the form of legislative changes to provide better protection; better “access” to cheaper medications; and the development of a model plan to help to shift long-term care from institutional settings to homes. But I query whether that will be sufficient to meet their present and pressing needs. Help in the form of relief is needed now, not tomorrow. Their plight truly is a case of the urgency of now.

• Legislation to ban dark-visor helmets. Finally. The only wonder in most quarters will be: geez, what took you so long?

• Bathroom facilities for Shelly Bay Field in Hamilton Parish and White Hill Field in Sandys. Never, ever, overlook or underestimate delivery of the simple things that are dear and near, and important to constituents. But on this front, sadly, a great and timely opportunity was missed to address the Mills Creek fiasco that plagues not only shopkeepers, but their customers.

The business of business will be getting a lot of attention — and no surprise there, given the Government’s commitment to try to win back investor confidence and attract more investment:

• A Tourism Incentive Act to further encourage hotel investment and in other “tourism-related products”

• More legislation in the form of regulations to finally get gaming off the ground

• An Electricity Act to be followed by further regulation of fuel, all with the aim, the hope, the promise of energy that is more secure, reliable and affordable — and what a breakthrough that could be

• More legislative concessions for the America’s Cup

• The usual raft of legislative amendments to strengthen Bermuda’s reputation and capabilities as an offshore business centre

All of it sounds pretty simple and straightforward, which, of course, it always is — on paper.

It is only upon delivery that we get to see the detail and the devil emerges — to change around the well-known phrase, slightly.

But these sorts of speeches are also known as much for what they didn’t say as for what they did. No, I am not thinking of the issue of same-sex marriage, although there is that. Rather, I have in mind a couple of what I call “Trojan” horses. We are never quite sure just what is inside or behind them until after they arrive. There were a couple of notable ones, too:

• Public service reforms to strengthen performance accountability: exactly what form or shape these will take is of great interest in light of the reports of the Auditor-General — pick a year, any year, folks — and what these reports have had to say about past practices, which may not just be past but still present. Working groups will be looking to “review and rationalise” government operations. No word yet on whether the unions are on board. They ought to be.

• A review to “reform” the Island’s tax system as part of the Government’s multiyear deficit reduction strategy — but no word on how bold or far-reaching this reform will be, a point that did not escape the immediate attention of the Chamber of Commerce.

• A review of pensions, private and public, to determine if they are “set at appropriate levels”, although we were also told amendments are already in the works to provide for “significant changes” to the regulation and supervision of pension plans. This may not be exactly what anxious seniors want to hear.

• Plans to consolidate, streamline and update labour legislation to make it more “user-friendly”. To whom? For whom? And where? In court?

• More fixes to “inequities” in the Bermuda Immigration and Protection Act 1956, for which, we are told, there will be amendments to be preceded by “public consultation”. Hmm. Sounds like we’ve been down this road before. Is it not time for a new Act (this one is more than 50 years old, for goodness’ sake) and surely a comprehensive overhaul (and not amendment) is well past due; as is a bipartisan, more collaborative approach, given all that we have been through to date?

The official Opposition Reply today, followed by the usual debate. We look for green shoots here, too, Mr Editor, because while the lyrics may change, and even the tune, the beat, and the bleat, goes on.

Tomorrow: Money, money, money — the Auditor-General’s Report.