I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

“New Labour and Conservatives are currently converging in the political spectrum, and I say it is a good thing. Why? Because it gives me and others the choice to vote for an alternative moderate party…”

Such as? I suppose I could vote for UKIP, but that is about it.

“I don’t believe the same party should rule for more than a decade. It either gets stagnated or corrupted.”

I agree that governments trail off near the end, but if the voters want to keep them in…

“So for me, choice is about having 3 moderate parties in which I can decide the one that can govern the country, regardless of whether it tilts to the right or left… rather than just being locked all my life to one party where I feel it shares my ideology.”

But what if your views do not conform to the ‘consensus’ views? Who do you turn to? I want lower taxes and lower spending. Not a radical position one might think, but one that none of the three main parties are offering, thanks to the consensus on tax and spend.

But no doubt have the expertise of others. The vast majority of people these days vote for moderate political parties, rather than those with radical agendas, either left or right. New Labour and Conservatives are currently converging in the political spectrum, and I say it is a good thing. Why?

Because it gives me and others the choice to vote for an alternative moderate party… as I don’t believe the same party should rule for more than a decade. It either gets stagnated or corrupted. On the other hand, it is not good for the country to have a complete shift in ideology and direction every number of years.

So for me, choice is about having 3 moderate parties in which I can decide the one that can govern the country, regardless of whether it tilts to the right or left… rather than just being locked all my life to one party where I feel it shares my ideology.

“Having one or two conservatives in the government does not hinder the opposition nor the government one bit.”

I believe that it does. Take the example of Patrick Mercer, arguably the Conservatives’ top expert on security. Now that he is working for the Labour government, the Conservatives no longer have his expertise when they come to scrutinise the government’s proposals.

“Consensus does not mean betraying your core ideals. It means working to achieve common goals. And all three main parties share common goals, although they may attribute different priorities.”

In a very broad sense they do; all the parties want a safer world, better public services, lower crime rates and so on. The differences come when they are debating how to achieve these aims, and therefore there needs to be a divide between the various ideas to give people chocie, and the opposition needs to be ready to hold the government to account and scrutinise its plans.

El Cid:

“Let’s not kid ourselves: party politics do not simply reflect the divisions in society, they also encourage them and can undermine our collective capacity to solve problems.”

But society is not a homogenous body with all the right answers; that is why parties need to come up with different ideas and test them against established ones.

“OK, for argument’s sake, take the government’s Sure Start initiative to invest in early schooling. I’ve read this week that the results so far have not been great — not for kids from severely deprived families, although it gets better as you move down (up?) the deprivation scale. Wouldn’t it better to focus on improving the policy in practice and addressing the reasons why parental alienation is difficult to overcome?”

Thank you for proving my point. If there had been a ‘consensus’ on Sure Start, there would have been no scrutiny of it, nor would there be any alternative ideas in the event of failure.

When most people are asked why they do not vote, the response is usually along the lines of “there is little difference between the main parties so nothing will change if a new party gets in.

I could easily respond to these 2 points but it would merely serve to extend a discussion for discussion’s sake. What I mean is that I’m not against party politics. It’s about balance. Let’s not kid ourselves: party politics do not simply reflect the divisions in society, they also encourage them and can undermine our collective capacity to solve problems.
Let me put it another way: we could have a more efficient decision-making process if we didn’t treat everything as a political football. And tories laaaarve efficiency.
Example? OK, for argument’s sake, take the government’s Sure Start initiative to invest in early schooling. I’ve read this week that the results so far have not been great — not for kids from severely deprived families, although it gets better as you move down (up?) the deprivation scale. Wouldn’t it better to focus on improving the policy in practice and addressing the reasons why parental alienation is difficult to overcome?
Sure, there are real political differences — the right wing of the tory party thinks each child/family/man for themselves. But for more sensible one nation tories — why deny them a chance to influence policy? It’s just an example for illustrative purposes off the top of my head.

But that is not the case, is it? Your whole argument, in my view, only stands if indeed both parties decided to merge. Having one or two conservatives in the government does not hinder the opposition nor the government one bit.

Consensus does not mean betraying your core ideals. It means working to achieve common goals. And all three main parties share common goals, although they may attribute different priorities.

“What I am saying is that consensus between government and opposition is far more democratic (specially if the opposition has a substancial vote share) … And the opposition can still do its job in making the government accountable. It is not mutually exclusive.”

For some reason, more people voted for the Labour party than any other party, and they should govern. It is not right that the Conservatives or Lib Dems should join the government, since the vote indicates that people wanted a Labour government. Did Labour voters vote for Labour to share power with the Conservatives?

How can the opposition properly hold the government to account if it is no longer the opposition?

You are straw-manning here. No one is saying that consensus means you come up with perfect measures. What I am saying is that consensus between government and opposition is far more democratic (specially if the opposition has a substancial vote share), and I think it is very positive that a country gets the best people regardless of their party colours. And the opposition can still do its job in making the government accountable. It is not mutually exclusive.

“Consensus politics amongst the main parties can also lead people to turn to extremist parties like the BNP, because they feel that they are not being represented.”

There is always UKIP.

“Specially considering that the conservative vote is substancial, should the Labour government forget about them just because their share of the vote is 5% larger?”

They should not be forgotten, but the Labour party was not elected to implement Conservative policies, so I do not see why it should. If more people want the Conservatives they can vote for them.

“So while I agree that such a move is certainly not good for the opposition party, specially since it helps the government do a better job by hiring the best people, and follow a more moderate and consensus-based agenda… I don’t see how that harms the country.”

Governments often talk about ‘investing’ and spending more money on this and that, but it is not their money, it is the taxpayers’. Since ministers are not actually spending their own money, they are a lot more careless, hence all the overspend. They need to be watched.

As for consensus, whose is to say that the particular consensus is right. There used to be a broad consensus that homosexual acts should be illegal, that keeping slaves was okay, that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Only by having public figures who challenge these cosy consensuses can we hope to improve things. As Ally (#4) said, give people a choice.

Chris Paul:

“Don’t doubt the principle of “all the talents” but also massively delighted that Gordon is managing to do this.”

Talented?

El Cid:

“I want good governance and progress, with a sprinkling of politics when there are real differences not “strategic” ones.”

There are very few subjects that do not have contentious points, and Parliament should reflect that. How many issues can you think of where there is no debate needed?

“You forget how alienating democratic politics can be — the voting stats don’t lie.”

When most people are asked why they do not vote, the response is usually along the lines of “there is little difference between the main parties so nothing will change if a new party gets in.

***

Consensus politics amongst the main parties can also lead people to turn to extremist parties like the BNP, because they feel that they are not being represented.

In practice, it is for the sake of winning the next elections. Even if the government is doing a good job, the opposition must show that it can do better, and one way to achieve this is to oppose whatever the government does, and convince people that is the right thing to do. Of course, it doesn’t help if members of the opposition party go to work for the government.

So while I agree that such a move is certainly not good for the opposition party, specially since it helps the government do a better job by hiring the best people, and follow a more moderate and consensus-based agenda… I don’t see how that harms the country, and why we – people who are not defined by partisan lines – need “party politics”.

A lofty ideal, but in practice, what most people see is opposition for the sake of opposition, posturing, and irrelevant politics. You forget how alienating democratic politics can be — the voting stats don’t lie.
I want good governance and progress, with a sprinkling of politics when there are real differences not “strategic” ones.

Groupthink indeeed

Tories are unnecessary. Vote for Gordon. Dave-id is a twat.

I’m not actually sure there are any Labour party MPs who have served in the modern military (i.e. since the end of national service).

It’s why they were so keen to get the services of Paddy Ashdown. Presumably Mercer is seen as the least-bad substitute.

The military is practically a distinct ethnic group or caste these days – to wear a uniform is to be further away from the experience of the civilian majority than to be Jewish, or maybe even black or gay.

Clearly, the government needs someone on the inside from that group, as much as any other. If you rely on some outside consultant or pressure group, then you are hideously vulnerable to them using their greater knowledge to pull a fast one.

Another solution would be all-military shortlists.

On the plus side I do I find that they taste better the next day …

TFI

“Of course, this does not detract from the fact that you’re a right wing Tory and therefore eat asylum seekers’ babies for breakfast. We thought we’d let that one slide for now.”

Actually, I eat them for lunch- you silly leftie.