Grown-up Opposition
Oliver Letwin describes what a serious Opposition should do.

A recent television advert features a politician being interviewed and seemingly about to be pulverised for some disaster. To the broadcaster’s great surprise, he says, “yes, I take on all responsibility, I got it wrong”. The broadcaster looks on in shock and the politician’s advisers hold their head in their hands. The politician is the only one in the room with a big grin, the weight of the world off his shoulders.

Unfortunately, such a response is not commonplace. It is far more common to find a politician defending every one of his own actions (including those which he actually regrets) and attacking every one of the actions of his opponents (including those, with which he actually agrees).

This tribal approach has led to the contempt that most people feel for politics.
Walk up and down any high street in Britain and ask people about their attitudes towards politicians and the response will be: “all they do is bicker amongst themselves”, “they’re all the same” or “they are all as bad as one another”. This is no doubt part of the reason for a slump in voter turnout. In 2001 just 59% of the electorate chose to vote at all (with 24.2% of the electorate voting Labour and 19% voting Conservative).

Of course, for an opposition party, tribal “yah boo” politics is a tempting option. The Government seems to have all the cards. They dictate the legislative agenda, release White Papers, and make Statements to the Parliament and the Press. They have a huge Civil Service behind them. Partisan attacks on the Government can bring short-term rewards, giving easy headlines and the appearance of activity.

The problem is that the long-term effect of partisanship is disastrous. Today’s confrontational headline is too often a nail in tomorrow’s coffin because it reinforces the stereotype in the back of people’s minds about politicians. It provokes a similar partisan response by the government, and contributes to the idea that oppositions are merely opportunists.

This was the painful lesson that we collectively learned from our second election defeat in 2001. Although we had many innovative ideas and interesting policies to improve Britain, the public had little trust in the Conservatives because we had come to be seen in their eyes as primarily “an oppositionist” party.

If we are to re-establish our credibility as a plausible alternative government, we need to engage in grown-up opposition. This means consciously forsaking certain opportunities and exhibiting formidable self-discipline.

What will grown up opposition involve?

First, it will involve being honest about what we agree with and what we disagree with.

The electorate are much more likely to respect us if we are willing to concede where the government has got it right. This does not mean blanket approval. What it does mean is that – as in any discussion in a business or a family – we need to begin by assuming that our interlocutors, the Government, have a rational and benevolent intention. Once we make this assumption, our duty as an opposition becomes clear: it is to examine whether in practice the Government’s intention is likely to be fulfilled by the policies they are putting forward. To fulfil this duty, we need (not hyperbolic antagonism but) careful analysis based on real understanding of the way things work.

On the basis of such analysis, we will normally find that there are some good, and some much less good aspects of the Government’s proposals. We then need to be willing both to be generous in admitting the good bits and robust in identifying the bad bits. If we proceed in this fashion, we will contribute to the improvement of legislation and administration in Britain, and at the same time (slowly) begin to acquire a reputation for being fair minded and sensible – critical preconditions for being taken seriously by the electorate as a plausible alternative government.

In other words, we must be an opposition that recognises what binds us to our political opponents is far greater than what separates us. We must be opposition which helps sets a responsible tone for national debate. We must be an opposition, which is constantly awake, alert and inquisitive. Then we will be an opposition that is seen as (and is) ready for government.

Second, grown up opposition will involve focusing on issues that the public care about and in a language that they can relate to.

Although Conservatives can see the fundamental importance of constitutional issues, and of the containment of the state’s involvement in the economy, these are not questions which currently fire the imagination of most of our fellow-citizens.

Most people’s priorities are about whether their grandfather is going to have to wait two years for a hip operation, whether their son or daughter is going to get a decent education at school and whether it is safe to walk home from the station at night.

We should not be ashamed to recognise that the Liberal Democrats have understood this for years. They have achieved successes precisely because they have campaigned on “pavement politics”. It is time that we reclaimed our share of the pavement. We need to find specific examples in individual constituencies and highlight local concerns about failing public services. We must find a language which shows that we are trying to get to grips with the tremendous social problems that are inflicting so much damage to our society.

We must show by the way we talk, and by what we talk about, that we want to improve the lot of the disadvantaged.

Third, grown up opposition involves announcing policy only after careful and prolonged consideration.

During our first four years in opposition we were keen to respond to the tremendous pressure on us to produce policies quickly to address emerging problems as they emerged. The result was that the policies too often had to be refined or reversed at a later date, in the light of new information, or further reflection. During the next four years, if we are to re-establish our credibility with the electorate, we must be ruthlessly disciplined in not making policy until we are sure that each policy we are announcing is part of a coherent narrative, is memorable, will work in practice, and is consistent with the remainder of our policies.

This approach will, of course mean that there are many topics on which we do not have announced policies. That should not frighten us. Nobody normal expects an opposition to know the answer to everything, and it is often far better to have, and to put across, a clear idea about our aspirations than to dwell on specific mechanisms to translate those aspirations into efforts.

Fourth, and most important of all, grown up opposition involves gradually establishing in the public mind what we are for.

We should not expect this to be a matter of absolutes. The Conservative tradition has never been absolutist, and modern Conservatism (subsisting, thank goodness, in a world largely rid of the nonsenses of crypto-Marxist socialism), is not about nailing our colours to masts. It is rather about taking practical steps to make things work better, whilst achieving appropriate balances between economic freedom and fair distribution, between social freedom (otherwise known as civil liberties) and public safety, between freedom of choice in public services and universal provision of public services.

We need to make clear that we are for achieving a balance which puts a little more emphasis on personal freedom, personal responsibility and inter-personal tolerance, than our colleagues in other political parties. And we need to illustrate why we believe that tilting the balance towards freedom, responsibility and tolerance will make things work better, increase our prosperity and promote social cohesion. In short, we need only to be true to ourselves. The rest will take care of itself.