I found the newly-elected head of Britain’s Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn’s op-ed in the Observer interesting. I found hardly a word about the policies he’d favor but about 800 criticizing what he opposed:
The Conservatives are introducing a trade union bill that will make it harder for workers to get a fair deal at work, to fight for fair pay and for a better work-life balance. Trade unions are a force for good – a force for a more equal society. United, Labour will vote against this anti-democratic attack on trade union members.
On Tuesday, the government will set out regulations to cut tax credits, leaving thousands of working families worse off. Tax credits are a vital lifeline to many families and Labour will oppose these cuts.
It is clear, too, that the prime minister will soon again be asking us to bomb Syria. That won’t help refugees, it will create more.
Isis is utterly abhorrent and President Assad’s regime has committed appalling crimes. But we must also oppose Saudi bombs falling on Yemen and the Bahraini dictatorship murdering its democracy movement, armed by us.
I guess that’s the role of an opposition party. It’s one of the many aspects of British politics I wish we wouldn’t emulate but over the years I’ve seen an increasing move of either the Democrats or the Republicans or both away from just being the other party to being an opposition party. I don’t find that particularly productive but then I didn’t grow up with that.
Update
Oddly, I learned a lot more about what Mr. Corbyn supports in the first article from the Tories I read than I did in Mr. Corbyn’s own statements. While I agree with Mr. Corbyn’s assertion that no country can cost-cut its way to prosperity, has any country ever price-controlled its way to prosperity?
