What’s the Point of an ‘Opposition’ Anyway?

If anyone needs proof that Labour and the 'Tories' are two sides of the same coin, here it is.

From The European Conservative

By Michael Curzon

Starmer’s first session of questioning in Parliament descended into an intolerable back-patting match.

Having led his party to a major defeat at the July 4th general election, Rishi Sunak is now the “Leader of His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition.” Not that you’d have realised this watching yesterday’s session of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs).

Prime ministers are said to dread the almost-65-year-old 30-minute tradition which allows Members of Parliament the opportunity to hold the head of the government to account. But Sir Keir Starmer, the new Labour PM, had no reason to be worried about his first session.

Of all the issues Sunak could have focused on in his six questions, he chose Britain’s support for Ukraine, on which there is—in the Tory leader’s own words—a “cross-party consensus.” Starmer was pleased to be ‘questioned’ on this subject, where he agreed there is “unity across this House” of Commons.

And so, after every back-patting exchange between the two figures, Sunak was more than happy to “thank him for that response” … “I’m glad to hear” … “I very much welcome the prime minister’s response,” and so on. Not responses you would expect to hear from the leader of the, er, opposition.

Quentin Letts, the Mail’s Westminster sketch writer, jibed that Starmer’s PMQ debut “was a soul sapping bore—nearly North Korean in its joylessness.” More importantly, it was nearly North Korean in its absence of disagreement.

UnHerd editor Freddie Sayers added that Sunak could have at least raised issues where “he has concerns” rather than “waste his questions endorsing things he supports.”

It’s not as though there aren’t serious areas where plenty of proper debate could be had.

Sunak could have pushed the PM on Labour’s radical and anti-democratic tearing up of the constitution, which will make it all the more difficult for genuine conservatives to govern in the future, if they ever get in.

He could have offered opposition to the effective amnesty being granted to tens of thousands of illegal migrants, which will encourage many more migrants to risk the dangerous journey across the Channel.

He could have posed a question on the restoration of funding to a U.N. agency that has been accused of having serious links to Hamas.

He could have criticised Starmer’s plan to “reset” UK-EU relations, which has been seen as Labour’s opening salvo against Brexit.

He could have raised all these issues, and more. But he didn’t.
And it is hard to picture the next leader of the Opposition, when Sunak steps down in November, taking their job more seriously, either.