As I noted last week, the last time a Labour government presented a King’s Speech, Clement Attlee was in Downing Street, and George VI was on the throne. The corollary to this is that a Conservative leader hasn’t been called upon to answer one since Winston Churchill was Leader of the Opposition. Into those not-insubstantial shoes, Rishi Sunak steps today. No pressure.
Nikki da Costa has laid out eight simple rules for mounting an effective parliamentary Opposition. It would be hard enough to do so after fourteen years in government even if we weren’t suffering from post-election shellshock and hobbled by lost man (and woman) power. But if we cannot change the miserable hand we have been dealt, we can choose how well we play it.
That starts with the approach we take to Labour’s legislative programme. Da Costa suggests we must “provide principled opposition to what is and is not included” and to “use the summer months to go over…bills in details, marshal third parties outside parliament, and think about a two-House strategy and crucially their key messages”. All sound and sensible practical advice.
Lacking her mastery of parliamentary procedure, my humble suggestions can only focus on the content of Keir Starmer’s first royal missive. Being an effective opposition, according to one academic, requires taking advantage of luck, choosing your battles, and asserting leadership. Before handing over to a successor, Sunak can embrace all three in approaching the King’s Speech.
Luck seems in short supply for Conservatives, and not only because our candidate for Milton Keynes Central was unsuccessful in being elected. But we have been blessed with one good opportunity: a bubbling Labour revolt over the two-child benefit cap. Kim Johnson, a Labour backbencher, has said she plans an amendment opposing it, with other MPs speaking out in support.
Adding to SNP, Liberal Democrat, Reform, and Green opposition, I suggested last week this was a prime opportunity to test the health of Starmer’s majority, his backbenchers’ rebelliousness, and their willingness to work with Tories. That’s leaving aside that the policy saves little, harms many, and has failed in its tacit ambition of discouraging welfare recipients from having more children.
Yes, backing a reversal of a policy we oversaw in government only two weeks ago is blatantly opportunistic. But that is expected of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Remember Labour’s exploitation of Conservative divides over Europe all through the 1990s? Using Starmer’s own MPs to cause him a little discomfort would not be a bad day’s work, even if the amendment failed to pass.
It would also mark a small break from our time in government. Defining a critique of Labour’s rule and outlining a coherent alternative to it will wait until we have seen a little more of Starmerism in practice, conducted some form of collective post-mortem, and elected a new leader. But that should not stop us from being pragmatic in what of Labour’s agenda we condemn or support.
The King’s Speech is thought to contain more than 35 bills, centred on an ambition to “take the brakes off Britain” and encourage growth. The kneejerk reaction of MPs to Labour’s enthusiasm for backing housebuilding and speeding up energy infrastructure has been opposition. But, as Joseph Dinnage suggests, ongoing complicity in our national stagnation is a pointless dead end.
If Labour are keen on sticking it to the Nimbys, we should give them our tacit support. Not only to channel the spirit of Pierre Poilievre, but because it enables them to handle the difficult decisions we ducked in government. One also expects Sunak’s support for Labour’s willingness to see through his legacy projects that he failed to pass, most obviously his phased smoking ban.
Conservative opinions on this legislation will differ. The thinning of the Trussite herd has robbed it of some of its more vocal opponents. I believe it is deeply silly, impractical, and illiberal. But Tories can find more common ground over those parts of Labour’s agenda not tied to the former Prime Minister, such as the pointless and damaging removal of hereditary peers.
The broader point is to encourage Conservative MPs, from Sunak down, not to fall into opposition for opposition’s sake. We must choose which battles to fight and why, with one eye on tactical advantage and one on the national interest. Unused to opposition, this will take time. But today provides our first learning opportunity. Backing a revolt on the two-child limit would be no bad start.