The character of the Queen’s Speech yesterday and the response that it prompted were both somewhat surreal. The address itself outlined 32 legislative measures, as well as others carried over from the previous session and more ideas in draft form. This is a programme so packed that it would take a full 18 months to enact the lot, not the 20-odd weeks of parliament-ary time expected before the next general election. The principal line of criticism from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats was not, nevertheless, that a state occasion had been hijacked to preview a party manifesto but that ministers were determined to foster a “climate of fear” in Britain.

That charge is at best hyperbole and at worst irresponsible. Reasonable people can disagree, for example, about the principle and practical benefits of identity cards, but the idea that there is no threat to national security from terrorism that requires current laws to be examined is unreasonable. Ministers find themselves in the strange position where the failure of the likes of al-Qaeda to launch attacks here is taken not as evidence of an effective, if stretched, intelligence and policing operation, but as proof that no danger existed in the first place. It has become fashionable to express distrust in politicians. A little more faith on the matter of terror would be sensible.

In reality, what unites most of the proposals is not fear but their pragmatic nature. Many could easily have been shaped by a decent Conservative administration. Most seek to deal with obvious anachronisms in existing law or react to challenges that have become more pressing. There is not much in this collection that can truly be labelled “Blairite”, “Brownite” or “Howardite”. There is a sense of Whitehall doing its business.

This technocratic edge means that many of these Bills — whether introduced this side of an election contest or not — should be comparatively uncontroversial. The creation of a British version of the FBI — the Serious Organised Crime Agency — is overdue and the fresh powers to assist those tormented by animal rights extremists are welcome. Crossrail has been a long time coming (it may not arrive in the end), but it is worth authorising the necessary legislation. Many aspects of the blueprints to deal with road safety, consumer credit, the organisation of the railways, the definition of a charity or the means by which lottery funds are allocated appear rational.

There are other areas where intense scrutiny will be merited. The process of “streamlining” inspection of schools should not be an alibi for weakening it. Both chambers should carefully examine the European Union Bill for potentially awkward ambiguities in the constitutional text as well as endorse a referendum on the treaty. The constitutional legislation that has been carried over, much of it affecting the role and powers of the Lord Chancellor, should not be steamrollered through to beat the election day deadline. The whole realm of corporate manslaughter is immensely complicated. Ministers have been wise to commit themselves to draft legislation only for now.

After the parliamentary theatre of yesterday comes the reality of a script that, while worthy, is not lyrical. Ministers are more likely to bore the voters over the next few months than terrify them. The hustings will, though, arrive soon enough (and too soon for some). The fate of this Queen’s Speech will then rest upon the people’s judgment.