I1L2T3 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Of course they are, they're in opposition and, at the halfway stage can promise anything if they think it will capture the public, as did Cameron when in opposition (werent we promised referendums from him as well) Ed milliband guaranteed a job for everyone under 25 6 months back, which on the face of it was popular with the public and understandably under 25s. Blair tied us in the eu proper style with little or no consultation if memory serves. Opposition have a role to scrutinise , and with a coalition I think its even more important, but shouting "no" at everything the government does (even the u turns) isn't helping anyone. But they're not shouting 'no' at every opportunity. There are some areas of broad agreement, for example over the need for cuts, deficit reduction, national security etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 We need a strong opposition,if we didn't have that it would be like having a one party state. The ruling party we have need to be challenged otherwise they would grasp any opportunity they could to introduce policies and mismanage situations that were bad for the nation. Not that they don't do that allready,but imagine how much worse it would be without a strong opposition to prevent a leading party from creating more disorder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 We need a strong opposition,if we didn't have that it would be like having a one party state. The ruling party we have need to be challenged otherwise they would grasp any opportunity they could to introduce policies and mismanage situations that were bad for the nation. Not that they don't do that allready,but imagine how much worse it would be without a strong opposition to prevent a leading party from creating more disorder. We do need strength on the opposition side. Sadly some of the strongest voices (LibDems) in opposition in recent parliaments have shown that in government they're not nearly as impressive. Labour in opposition are a mixed bag. They're getting better but they're not the opposition we need and deserve at a time when radical changes are being made. All a bit of a mess isn't it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 We do need strength on the opposition side. Sadly some of the strongest voices (LibDems) in opposition in recent parliaments have shown that in government they're not nearly as impressive. Labour in opposition are a mixed bag. They're getting better but they're not the opposition we need and deserve at a time when radical changes are being made. All a bit of a mess isn't it! "A bit of a mess" to say the least! goodness knows where its all leading? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Isnt it the oppositions job to look for any sign of weakness and to exploit it? The Tories made for a pretty weak opposition during the last decade. They happily sided with the war criminal Blair. Call for Tories to explain Iraq support The Duty of an Opposition is to oppose Randolph Churchill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANAdeLdF Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 We need a strong opposition ... imagine how much worse it would be without a strong opposition to prevent a leading party from creating more disorder. What a shame then that the Westminster system is totally geared towards a weak opposition. Lord Hailsham once called it an "elective dictatorship", and with good reason. Most of Thatcher's laws could not have been pushed through the parliament of any other European country. (Note that Lord Hailsham was a Tory.) I'm sorry to say the opposition in the House of Commons is reduced to a decorative role most of the time. The vote on the invasion of Iraq was one of those rare occasions where Blair did actually rely on the votes of Tory MPs, as too many of his own backbenchers saw sense for once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 What a shame then that the Westminster system is totally geared towards a weak opposition. Lord Hailsham once called it an "elective dictatorship", and with good reason. Most of Thatcher's laws could not have been pushed through the parliament of any other European country. (Note that Lord Hailsham was a Tory.) I'm sorry to say the opposition in the House of Commons is reduced to a decorative role most of the time. The vote on the invasion of Iraq was one of those rare occasions where Blair did actually rely on the votes of Tory MPs, as too many of his own backbenchers saw sense for once. While the state of the Labour party during the early and middle part of Thatcher's tenure didn't help she had enough of a loyal majority to force pretty much anything she wanted through. The situation was pretty much the same during the new labour years. From Thatcher onwards, the most effective opposition to all of the governments has been the House of Lords. As much as I believe reform of the HOL is necessary, I'm not convinced that it would be such an effective opposition. This time round, the labour party hasn't self destructed and so they have proved to be a better opposition but they are a bit limited in their outlook as they are mostly "public school -> oxbridge -> special advisor ->MP" types. A greater separation of legislature and executive would help too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FANAdeLdF Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 While the state of the Labour party during the early and middle part of Thatcher's tenure didn't help she had enough of a loyal majority to force pretty much anything she wanted through. The situation was pretty much the same during the new labour years. You just proved my point. All it takes is for the governing party with its characteristically large majority to whip a few of its backbenchers into shape, and any law, no matter how regressive, will pass in the House of Commons. The opposition can huff and puff, but it can do zilch to stop it, as there are no "checks and balances" of any sort in the Westminster system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 You just proved my point. All it takes is for the governing party with its characteristically large majority to whip a few of its backbenchers into shape, and any law, no matter how regressive, will pass in the House of Commons. The opposition can huff and puff, but it can do zilch to stop it, as there are no "checks and balances" of any sort in the Westminster system. Surely a popular government that can push through the policies it ran for election on is desireable? At the moment we have "checks and balances" galore, from the lib dems, tory back bench and in this case labour. That should make this a great way to govern by your logic but it seems virtually everyone on all side is disassisfied with the current setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 The vote on the invasion of Iraq was one of those rare occasions where Blair did actually rely on the votes of Tory MPs, as too many of his own backbenchers saw sense for once. Up to that point i had admired Blair,but then i was relieved when Gordon Brown became PM and look what we now know about him. Like many people i have become very disillusioned with politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.