And Another Thing…

Think you’ll find it’s 100% in one respect. No one in Parliament have either served in, or opposed a coalition Gov., before.

Surely that’s cancelled out by the fact that a very low percentage of the Conservatives (and absolutely none of the Lib Dem)s have been in government before?

Both government and opposition parties will gain experience of their respective situations at the same rate.

Incidentally, why is it more difficult to be in opposition? As far as I can remember, for the last 30 years at least, opposition parties just moan about government policies and don’t come up with any real alternatives until just before a General Election – and often not even then!

Forget what the Tories are doing.

Labour was put on it’s arse because ordinary people, you know, the type that work and raise families were abandoned in favour of the feckless and unemployable.

Your customers are now benefit claimants and immigrants and you made the rest of us suffer to accomodate them.

Every minority was catered for with our money as long as it voted Labour. Trouble is, you forgot that a minority is all they ever were and the majority have had enough of funding single mothers and Albanian asylum seekers whilst being taxed to death and called bigots by their masters.

Just last week, Labour was telling us we were all wrong and now, seven days later, suddenly it’s telling us we were all right.

I doubt Labour will ever realise real power above council level again. I’m not complaining.

Well, as we saw the same thing in ’97 when Labour won, it’s something you need to sort fairly quickly. An unchecked Government is never a good thing.

@ Chris,

The difference in ’97 was, Labour had a clear majority in the Commons and coupled with the fact that the Tories at that time didn’t know their arse from their elbow (some say they still don’t), Labour could basically do whatever they wanted to do. That is not the case this time around. The LibDems are there, in government, to keep the Tories in check.

And why did so many Labour MP’s decide not to stand for re-election?

Some MPs who did retain their seats need to learn some dignity and good manners, some of the winning speeches were a disgrace.

Tom, glad to see you seem to have moved along the denial, despair, anger, hope curve at last

Couple of thoughts:

Why don’t you do what Hannan/Carswell did for the Tories and start to think about what Labour will stand for next time around. I’m not at all convinced that ex-Brown or Blair leadership bid cronies are the way to go – the Tories made that mistake and look what happened…

I know that you know many of your admirers come from across the political spectrum in the same way that Frank Field’s do.

He’s thrown his expertise into the pot and HMG will be all the better for it – why not add your voice? IIRC you spoke an enormous amount of sense a few months ago about welfare/self-fulfilling poverty traps.

Dear Tom.
I agree with Plato – I posted previously that a cross-party interest could be a way forward for you

Tom – I think it was the same with the Tories in ’97.

Obviously critical for good governance that the Executive is held to account.

Look to the Lords – I know I will.

Labour has always been good at opposing things , so new boys will soon pick it up.However with farnk field and that man (is it mr Hutton)from the Industrial Society working for the coalition it puts a different slant on things. When the independent audit of Labours mess is complete I would advise you to keep your head down. How could you have let spending just run and run, it is unforgivable what you have done.

Don’t worry, Tom. You have plenty of experience.

All the Brownites were in opposition from 1997 to 2007 (or acted like it)

And the Blairites were in opposition from 2007 to 2010, when not acting as cabs-for-hire.

In fact, some less charitable interpretations would say that the Blair governments continued to run as if they were in opposition after 1997 – with daily media grids and constant announcements – rather than in government.

Old Holburn,

You gottit right – they bought their votes ….

£5,625,236 (sic) of taxpayers’ money given to The Equality Unit’s Race, Religion and Refugee Integration funding stream, designed to improve the lives of minority ethnic and faith communities in Scotland, including refugees, asylum seekers, migrant workers and Gypsies/Travellers.

Could this be the reason ???? (lol) ….

Citizens of Member States of the European Union – include all citizens of the following states.

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden.

These citizens will be registered as local government electors and (unless they are all qualifying commonwealth citizens such as citizens of Cyprus, Malta, or the Irish Republic, who can vote in all elections) are also entitled to vote in Scottish Parliament elections.

John Rentoul reckons “there are some worrying signs of Labour people being intensely happy to be back in opposition”.

As John Major might have put it in his charmingly imitable way, “oh dear”.

Labour has been opposing pretty effectively in the Scottish Parliament and London Assembly, though, hasn’t it? That Jim Murphy will know all about it, hasn’t he been in the thick of it in Scotland despite being a Westminster MP?

Also, opposing a coalition is a different thing altogether to opposing a party with a majority of it’s own. Your task will be to drive a wedge in the coalition to ensure it collapses as early as possible, while us activists start preparing on the ground for a general election. Good luck!

P.S. You all might wish to dig out the books and see how Thatcher handled the Lib-Lab coalition in the late 70′s – her strategy was to bring that govt down as soon as she had her own ducks in a row. There may be some tips to pick up (never be ashamed to pinch tactical ideas!)

@barton71

All valid points, however there is no guarantee that the LP won’t fall into some sort of civil war. This may be as part of the leadership contest, although that seems fairly amicable at the moment (early days I know). There is also the forthcoming audit that has been announced, if (and I do say if, not when) it is found that there was a scorched earth policy or a hiding of debt, this may cause friction between the factions of the Party, especially if Labour suffer in the polls.

There are some minefields ahead, I would hope that sensible heads prevail though.

Not all benefit claimants are feckless to begin with. I have lots of qualifications, but I’ve been unemployed for the past fifteen years. Nobody wants to hire deaf people and it’s even less likely they will now. If employers have a million fit and healthy young people to choose from, including 100,000 new graduates, why would they pick somebody they can’t communicate with?

Some of the hate-filled headlines that I see about “benefit scroungers” with the attendant sneering comments left by readers make me want to roll over and die.

There are lots of people on the outside looking in who point fingers and say ‘you could be doing some work!’ as if all I have to do is to inform the employer of my intention to take up the post(!)

Those who complain the loudest about taxpayer’s money being spent on benefits rarely support ideas to get people into work; often dismissing them as ‘social engineering.’

Hope you have sorted out a pair!

Labour delibrately walked out of government into opposition – and you Tom ask if Labour is fit to oppose.

Act in haste – repent at leisure.

Mac – let me guess: SNP supporter?

Well, if throwing a temper fit at the idea of working with political opponents or the spectacle Labour makes of itself in Holyrood is anything to judge by, then the answer to if they are fit to be in opposition is:

No.

By the way, before you spit more bile, Mr. Harris, I am not an SNP supporter nor even a Scot. I do watch the nasty impression your party manages to make on the rest of the world.

Any update on your little wager on Labour winning the election?

The bookie always wins…

I finally see the problem we have had for the past 9 or 10 years* – Labour MPs were not aware that it was not only the opposition who had to hold the government to account.

That explains why so many votes went against certain constituencies’ best interests but their MPs voted for them, why some policies were not in the public interest but certainly in the government’s interests but got voted through unopposed by virtually any Labour MP.

Were you (Labour) so scared of breaking party unity and allowing the Tories back in that all dissent was extinguished?

*Granted, some good things were done, or started, in the first 3 or 4 years.

It can take some time to accept that your party is not in govt any longer.

It takes a mixture of realism, humility and determination.

Scottish labour is still trying to work out how to do it, but Jim Murphy has been quite successful from the Scottish Office.

Ask him and them, and the Welsh party too….

Fit to oppose? Well, you clearly weren’t fit to govern, that;s for sure.

By the way, were it found that Brown and his inner cadre had deliberately set out to damage the incoming administration, it would be an act of treason.

Surely opposition is only similar to asking questions about the formulation of policies?

Maybe if the Labour Government had allowed debate rather than relying upon the Whip the party would now be well placed to make comments other than sound bites.

In the “new politics”, the coalition government is threatening to throw open the discreet cover placed by Labour over the national finances. All this talk of skeletons and truth? Maybe it might also place at risk the UK standing in equity markets if they don’t like the “truth”

Meanwhile the good ship Labour cruises on sereenly looking for a new leader and providing very little opposition…

If Labour are anywhere near as dire an opposition at Westminster as they are at Holyrood then they’ll have a while to learn.

The view that the Liberal Democrats will act as some sort of emollient on the harsher political philosophy of the Conservative Party, may well be true. The danger is that the emollient could be applied in the wrong area.

Those Conservative policies which many sensible people agree are necessary could be in danger of being watered down, and those from the wilder reaches of Liberal Democrat philosophy accepted and applied.

Thus the coalition, far from being the sum of all greatness, may result in an entrenchment of the bad and a weakening of the good.

We shall see.

@Liberanos,

Come on, a new administration, let’s all get behind hope and change.

The Lib Dems will hold the Tories to task for the return of civil liberties promised in the election and the Tories will not allow the Lib Dems to continue Labour’s ruinous public sector spending spree.

I hope it works that way, if it goes the opposite we’re all in trouble.

The trick to opposition is not to take that word as a mantra. Play it long and canny, ensuring that whilst opposing unfair measures/attacks on public services Labour is seen as a positive influence, arguing on the basis of a coherent vision and values and not opposing for the sake of it.

Do not oppose everything. Do not get filled with anger about everything. Pick and choose your battles and you will be all the more effective for it. If you sound off too often, the public will see you as;
a) destructive and not constructive
b) incapable of balance and rational thought
b) eventually not worth listening to.

The obvious danger here is that at the very time when you have vital points to make and have decidedly sensible, practical and well-thought through concerns/alternatives to outline, the Government can just say “Well you oppose everything,it’s always the same, there is no point listening to him/them.”, and at that point your argument is lost.

I watched through the eighties as labour spokesmen would tear their hair out pointing out the unfairness or crassness of a new Tory measure, only for the Tory minister to smile patronisingly, shake his head and say “Well there you go again, never mind”. Game over.

The real trick is to always appear to have reason on your side, to not indulge in hyperbole. That is why your strident comment about sitting next to a ScotNat was so, there is no other word, wrong.

You may not like the SNP, you may think they are disingenuous, insincere and perhaps treacherous, you may hate the idea of breaking-up the Union with every bone in your body; however none of that can justify a statement that you would ‘NEVER’ sit next to one.

They are not murderers/paedophiles/terrorists/cat stranglers/daleks. They are your political rivals – not a deadly enemy. Of course you may think that any alliance with the SNP would be unworkable, and that is fine to say. But you must do so with reasoned argument, not knee-jerk posturing.

The same is true of dealing with this coalition government. There is no point in complaining about every compromise policy or position. To do that is simply to ignore the reality of the electorate not being convinced by the manifesto of any of the parties. Such a position would make you seem to comprise a mixture of arrogance, ignorance and foolishness.

However if you are clever, you can exploit the ideological differences between the coalition partners, especially at the extremes of each side. I would start working on Simon Hughes and Charlie Kennedy now with regard to Osborne’s emergency budget.

Keep it cool. Work out a set of policies that are true to progressive values and that resonate with voters (don’t just think about marginal swing voters, try considering the white working-class in ‘safe Labour seats’) and show you understand what consensus and compromise mean. You never know, you might need to put them into action after the next election.