The role of the opposition is not to oppose but to create an economic programme, as a clear alternative to the prevailing one.
Where is the dichotomy. Racial groups or economic groups.
In the past, race was an issue because race was taken to be synonymous with economics. This was strongly argued to be the case, and championed. The champions got the trophy, and are now being challenged.
Today, the cause is justice. Social justice or economic justice.
The political battle is to pitch the poor against the rich.
This sounds like a good strategy, because there are more poor people than rich people. This is an advantage in a one-man or woman-one vote system. There is fairness the rich do not have two votes each (although there could economic transactions on the side).
The powerful becomes rich and becomes an elite.
It is a simple battle for the opposition: get rid of rich group A, by getting rid of the power of group A.
Group B enters.
If the system remains unchanged, the same routine continues until the loot is gone.
So long growth and prosperity is based upon development using government (or public) money, there will be abuse.
The current quarrel over the size of development, without which there is supposed to be no prosperity, is to be caught in the matrix, within the same paradigm.
For the opposition to propose something really different, they must propose a system of the economy which relies not on government infrastructure spending, not on foreign direct investment, but on local investments by local innovators employing local talents for exports.
I ain't see nothing yet.