Opposition Going in the Opposite Direction

In light of the mounting criticism at the current Opposition, a review of the role of the Opposition needs to be established. Like most aspects of the British political landscape, the unwritten constitution means that we can effectively make up our own rules, yet paradoxically are rigidly bound by custom. The leader of a cabinet, shadow or proper, can either act by consensus and be more of a chairperson, or be “Presidential”. They can either use the civil servants or surround themselves with personal advisors. The role of Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are not defined.

But while there has been countless works on good governance for Prime Ministers, very little attention has been given to the other half of the house. One recent book by Nigel Fletcher, a BBC article about that book and a research group The Centre for Opposition Studies whose website shows signs of dormancy are about the sum of what the Leader of the Opposition has to go on. Very little attention has been given to the role of the Opposition, and yet it plays such a vital part in our parliament.

Given our hilariously undemocratic system whereby the ruling party can effectively pass any legislation, the criticism and presence of the Opposition plays an incredibly important balancing role. An effective Opposition is essential to a healthy parliament, except it is up to the government to listen to its criticisms. Working on the basis of “criticism is constructive, cynicism is corrosive” (a quote from our good friend Tony Blair), a good government listens to criticism and a good Opposition gives constructive criticism.

In that light, the Opposition should not be a stumbling block to the government but should help develop government policy. This is my main argument recommendation. Further, the Opposition should never oppose policy for the sake of opposition. This is the fallacy the Conservatives fell in time and again; they opposed top up tuition fees yet now fees are tripled. Believe it or not, there are some government policies I agree with, and I’m sure there’s some the shadow cabinet agree with. In that case, it is their duty to scrutinise but they should not be afraid of praising policy or even aims of the government. For example, I praise Ken Clarke for identifying re-offence as the cause of most crime yet his proposals for dealing with re-offence deserve scrutiny. The Opposition should work with the government to deal with re-offence; have parallel plans, compare, improve and even come to an agreement. This requires the Opposition to stop moaning and start legislating; to stop being a stumbling block and help the government. In the end, we all want the same thing; a better Britain.  

When the government is down, the Opposition should help it back up, not kick it. All cynicism does is create an aura of negativity which needs to be ousted from politics. This negativity is why people do not trust their politicians, it is why we get turned away on the doorstep, and it is why turnout and membership is down. Parliament must move beyond the attitude of “us and them” perfectly summed up in Spitting Image with the benches chanting like football terraces. We need a cross-party consensus to eliminate negativity and clean the dirt from the face of Parliament. It is the responsibility of the Opposition to criticise but not to be cynical, to scrutinise policy without falling to argumentum ad hominem. Maybe then we can start to rebuild trust with the people so sorely needed.

The central theme that is needed more than anything else in Parliament is respect; we do not agree with them, but let’s respect them. We do not agree with their ideology, policy, proposals or even methods; but, as hard as it is for us to believe, they are only doing what they think is right. On an ethical note; there is no such thing as an “evil” act, no man acts consciously “bad”. They have their way and beliefs, we have ours, we disagree but that is healthy. They are not ‘stupid’, ‘evil’ or ‘fascist’. We should keep criticism healthy, positive and constructive and maintain a positive air of respect. Politics should be a chamber of debate that reaches a constructive conclusion by consensus, and yet turn on to Prime Minister Questions or most debates between rivals and one witnesses a shouting down match.

For this to work, the Opposition needs to have a plan. They need to ask “if we were in government, how would we respond?” This is a far more positive question than the current “what have the government done wrong today?” or “how can we undermine them?” Actions speak louder than words, which is unfortunate for the Opposition because they cannot easily pass policy (though as recommended above, they should endeavour to develop policy); their arsenal is limited to the voice. In this respect, Labour are failing; I know that the party has a plan concerning the NHS but we have not heard it. That is not wholly the fault of Labour as the media are naturally more interested in what the government plans than the Opposition. The powerless Opposition is dejected; they literally have to shout consistently to be heard.

An active Opposition is an effective Opposition. I’ll try and be unpartisan in this assessment, but the Conservative Opposition 1997-2010 was useless. This may partly be an effect of Blair’s command over the House and how rejected they were in the 1997 and 2001 elections. They wasted their time in Opposition, they asked all the wrong questions, they did not plan for government and now look; the ‘Big Society’, as I previously discussed, is a PR man’s afterthought, their prison reform will fail (prisons cannot be privatised), their hospital reforms are being rejected, their education reforms are nothing short of destructive, they are still not defined in foreign affairs.

I’ve been saying this for a year; Labour is fundamentally a social movement for a fairer, freer and safer society, it does not need to be in government to make society a better place. Government is just a tool, albeit a very useful one, to achieve our aims. Though we do not create legislation, the party must remain active; it must not sit back and moan but actually help the image of politics while maintaining a presence in the community. Opposition is not a time to sit back and complain about things – the people can do that themselves.

The Opposition plays a potentially major role in our Parliament, yet it is an ignored and overlooked role. It is a role in dire need of review; we may run by tradition (the tyranny of custom – Mill), so then we must create new customs. The Opposition should be positive, respectful, prepared, logical, know the ideology of their opposite better than the opposite (has Mr Miliband read Friedman or Hayek? Lots of ammunition there). Effective Opposition undoubtedly leads to more effective and more democratic government both in the present and the future – and maybe even to the promised land of popular politicians. (Nah, bridge too far there).

I’ll leave with the quote I used above; “Criticism is constructive, cynicism is corrosive” (Tony Blair).