What is the point of Her Majesty’s Opposition?

This is the question frequently posed and intended as a disabling joke, by the Prime Minister at Wednesday’s PMQs.

Little consideration is given to making a serious answer, but it is worth reflecting on, otherwise Opposition becomes simply a period of frustrated waiting till the next election.

The conventional answer is of course that the job of the opposition is to campaign and demonstrate to the electorate its fitness to govern. Now obviously an opposition that wasn’t attempting to do this would be pretty pathetic and this will, if it is thorough, include considering the political balance sheet of experience in government – what went well and what was mistaken. But it should not be the case that it takes a period in Opposition to engage with stakeholders, talk to constituents or indeed to undertake analysis and keep in touch with the intellectual currents forming the zeitgeist. After the last election some (usually those who had themselves spent several happy years as ministers) said Labour “needed” a period of opposition to do these things. But surely we should not have been so drunk with power that we were blind to the everyday worries of our fellow citizens? Furthermore this precludes the sort of effective and long lasting consensual governments social democrats achieved in Scandinavia.

Going into the next election we will need a compelling story and coherent vision clearly set out in a credible manifesto. We need a long term strategy for the country in which people can see “ah yes that is how my life would be better and that is how my work would be part of a bigger story”. This is what successful political leadership achieves – from Nasser in 1950’s Egypt, Kennedy in 1960’s America and Havel in 1990’s Czechoslovakia. It shows how the individual would be liberated to fulfil their potential as part of a wider social change. And for those on the left this is particularly important – we want to see an inclusive society putting “power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many”. Rebuilding the nation is not a top down exercise. Governments and political parties are not making a sales pitch which they will deliver; they are seeking to engage with their fellow citizens in a joint enterprise.

In truth we cannot possibly work out in detail everything that should be done. In any case only a tiny minority read the party manifestos. They are not a sort of upmarket D Phil in political problem solving. Instead we need to communicate a clear sense of direction within which others can take their own initiatives – whether they are public sector professionals improving their services, businessmen investing in new markets or students making career choices. Mrs Thatcher was very good at this – she communicated two key principles – markets and liberty – so that going into the Treasury even at the most junior level in 1980 was incredibly empowering, because if you promoted these two you would succeed.

All of this applies to any political party but the Opposition has special responsibilities focussed on its parliamentary activity, which make it different from other non-government parties – Plaid and the Greens. Our parliamentary democracy only works if these roles and responsibilities are conscientiously fulfilled. It is the responsibility of all MPs to scrutinise the executive and hold the government to account via questions and select committees. But the role of the Opposition is different – it is to provide the major challenge to government – and everything from the procedures and conventions to the geography of the Chamber institutionalise this. Without the Opposition we really would have elective dictatorship.

And the volume of this work is easily underestimated. In the latest Queen’s Speech – a light one – there are 20 bills. Many of these will have a dozen separate proposals to be explored, scrutinised and modified in committee. Sometimes we even succeed, as we did on the issues of rape and domestic violence in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act in the last session. Then there is secondary legislation (358 separate mini-debates last year), much decided as “regs”, but often containing important issues. In the last parliament we reformed the JSA rules for lone parents reducing their obligation to work from 35 to 16 hours. This might seem a minor measure – unless you are one of the one million lone parents trying to balance work and family life. This year we have uncovered Jeremy Hunt’s shambolic proposals for local TV and approved £150 million public spending for mobile infrastructure. Not earth shattering but not trivial either. Political journalists may have stopped reporting on parliamentary activity except in humorous sketches, but business lobbying continues unabated – it took one corporation a few hours after our last reshuffle to contact me. And it’s parliamentary committees that get the first shot at looking publically at proposals from the EU.

The really tricky thing with this is that it is all responsive and is often done with less than a week’s notice. This work reflects the government’s priorities and reacts to their proposals. It is therefore easy to end up with what are politely termed “emergent” strategies. We find what we think through trial and error. But to be a convincing, credible Opposition in the eyes of the public the responsive reactions to individual, short term measures must be consistent with what we propose for the long-term strategy.

In practice the only way we can do this is by having clear overarching narratives – like predator capitalism – and principles – like equality, which we articulate and pursue. Where these are clear, we have a sort of DIY kit which enables us to act both swiftly and coherently. We can then engage in pitched battles and guerrilla tactics.

Lastly, it is from a parliamentary majority that government authority derives. For the first time in a generation the Prime Minister lacks the security of political support. Notwithstanding the attempt in the Fixed Term Parliaments Act to institutionalise their existence. Early elections can be held only:

• If a motion for an early general election is agreed by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division or;
• If a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days.

The fact is that this Government is fragile. Two major and conflicting fissures – one with the 57 Liberal Democrats and one with the 81 rebellious Eurosceptics threaten its stability. So the Opposition has an opportunity to break the Prime Minister’s hold. David Cameron is very well aware of this danger. He is like a man on a horse galloping downhill, but if he senses he cannot clear a fence he will pull up sharply as he did over phone-hacking and House of Lords Reform.

The significance of this does not however seem to have imprinted itself on all Labour MPs. Take these recent examples of votes which should have been close, but where Labour abstentions were high.

We should be able to ambush this government successfully and we should not give up hope that we can bring them down. It’s time for a renewed focus on the power of parliament.

Helen Goodman MP is the Shadow Minister for Media and Telecoms