I’VE been privileged to have a role in Parliament for over a decade now, and over that time the government has been composed of a coalition between two parties, a minority administration where ministers needed to compromise, and of a single party majority which gets its way on almost every issue.

One thing has been the same every time: I’ve been on the opposition side.

Governments need effective opposition.

They need to be scrutinised and challenged on the detail of their work, from a range of different political points of view.

If I ever have the chance at a role in government, maybe I’ll come to regret those words – and maybe that’s the point.

But should the opposition just oppose for the sake of it?

It’s silly to vote against good ideas, or maybe even against the lesser of two evils if there’s no serious alternative.

But supporting the government can leave people asking what’s the point of being there.

The UK Labour Party is currently struggling to decide whether to oppose the Tories’ welfare legislation, a problem made worse by the fact that they’re in the middle of a leadership election.

But the interim leadership appears to be getting this one absolutely wrong.

There are many on the Blairite wing of the party which sees the election defeat as a sign that the party was too focussed on the needs of the poorest in society, and that it must have more to say to “aspirational” people, whatever that means.

It often sounds like code for very wealthy people who just think they’re paying too much tax.

There are others, including the unexpectedly popular leadership contender Jeremy Corbyn from the left of the party, who have an uncompromising hostility to the welfare cuts and who regard it as the continuation of a dismembering of the whole welfare state.

Their anger is all the stronger because they know that Labour itself has been guilty of pursuing that agenda when Tony Blair was in power.

The welfare state began to be used as a tool to bully people into low paid work, and even to subsidise poverty wages.

So this is more than a disagreement about the tactics of opposition – when to oppose a Bill and when to try and improve it instead.

This is a disagreement about the basic purpose of the Labour Party.

Former Home Secretary David Blunkett criticised Corbyn and other rebels by saying Labour “needs to do more than oppose” the bill. Of course they do.

They need to win again the basic argument for a welfare state.

But that can’t begin unless they firmly oppose a bill which will plunge people further into poverty and ill health.