If you want to cut pointless jobs, start with the Leader of the Opposition

Sir Keir Starmer is inheriting his party’s new legacy: an abandonment of the fundamental idea of ideological dispute between political parties.

With the topical talk of needing to cut pointless and unnecessary jobs paying exorbitant salaries, such as civil service roles, it seems that we have missed an obvious place to start.

There is one job paying an exorbitant racket which, currently, seems like anyone else but the current person doing it could fulfil the responsibilities that are supposed to come with it. That job is Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition kindly shared with us this week that he earns £130,000-140,000 per year through his role; an extraordinary salary, given that MPs for the Government, who he opposes, did more to bring down the Government in one day than he has achieved in two years in post.

The only example one needs to make the case for Sir Keir Starmer’s utter uselessness as opposition is his handling of the cost-of-living crisis. The idea that a Labour Party would want no fellowship with workers on the picket line, such as those on the rail.

Regardless of their arguments, and the likelihood that a wage-price spiral would inevitably follow from wage increases being granted across the public sector, the insistence that a party of labour will not be seen supporting those on the picket line sums up exactly what is wrong with modern Labour. They quite frankly do not understand, or perhaps, worse still, do not want the support of, the very people who have built and supported the Labour Party.

Sir Keir Starmer’s failure to do even this is a fundamental betrayal of proper politics in the United Kingdom. Our politics at its best should not be a meeting between friends but a debate between rivals, who believe that the ideology of their opponents is fundamentally against a right and proper society.

The problem, however, is that Sir Keir Starmer is inheriting his party’s new legacy: an abandonment of the fundamental idea of ideological dispute between political parties. New Labour deliberately disabled this with its constitutional and cultural revolution, facilitating what kind of opposition can be allowed, crassly done in the name of it being ‘democratised’.

The House of Lords, for example, is now a case in point. What was once an independent check on excessive power and overreach by those who may be tempted to abuse their democratic power, is now a rubber-stamping department, thanks to the removal of hereditary peers in the New Labour era. The House of Lords is now merely a vessel for political parties to approve their own agenda without any serious challenging.

This is only facilitated further by those media who have at worst become whole-heartedly embracing of this way of thinking, or at best ignorant of it in the need to push for higher viewer ratings or readership. The media coverage of Prime Minister’s Questions is prime example, treating it like a box office event rather than a chance to hold accountable those who govern our country. There is supposedly opposition, but it is perfectly packaged and controlled, with rehearsed lines and scripted points of attack that do nothing but allow both sides to claim victory in a phony battle over the other.

It really is very simple, if Sir Keir Starmer is unable to challenge, or more likely does not want to challenge his opponents, he should stand out the way and allow someone who will. If he does not, we are all the worst for it, no matter what your politics.