,
7 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
At a drinks with old friends recently one commented that the seizure of the two major parties by their respective poisons is a manifestation of a failure of governance.
Labour and Tory extremism reflects a heist by a small group motivating a selectorate. This has enabled them to hijack old brands with huge incumbent advantages.
The old brands endured - looking at it somewhat kindly - because of a reputation for providing a sequence of reasoned options for dealing with the challenges of the time.
You could think of this as the public service of parties. Crystallize the infinite array of possible policies into a manageable set of choices based on different value judgements about what are appropriate goals and rational policy programs that follow from those judgements.
Given incumbent advantages enjoyed by both parties, and the potential hazards of being hijacked, both ought to have governance structures that try to mitigate the risk of tyrannical heists that would interrupt the flow of policy option services the parties are meant to serve up.
Seen like this what the members do or don't want is neither here nor there. Not a matter for public concern. The important function is the continuity of reasoned policy options services. Members don't necessarily - clearly don't at the moment care - about this continuity.
This is a fancy way of observing 'it's not good that the Tory PM candidates end up in a lying war with each other over what they are going to do about Brexit to please the Tory selectorate.' For example.
