to wonder why we can't have cross party agreement on some things?

[PtolemysNeedle]

I'd have thought that whichever way you voted in the GE, we can pretty much all agree that we want a strong NHS and a high standard of state education. So why is it that these two fundamentally important things are allowed to be kicked around and battered like footballs in this political game we have going on?

Is it really too much to ask that the leaders of our country, those in power and those in opposition, get together and behave like adults to achieve what we ultimately all want?

I feel like I must be missing something important, because I just can't see the point in all this chopping and changing the way things are done in education and the NHS when all it does is waste money and detract from the the common goal.

Presumably the political parties feel there are different ways to achieve those things efficiently. They might all agree those are good things, but not agree on the best way to get there.

Unfortunately it is part and parcel of our adversarial political system. Unlike other parliaments where representatives generally sit in the round, in the House of Commons we have two sides literally facing off against each other. One party is even know officially as "the opposition" and has the job of opposing the government.

It is not a system designed to encourage cross-party cooperation.

Because politicians are more interested in beating each other than the outcome.
Because politics is filled with dick swinging juveniles.

Look at the threads on here to see how dickish people become.

It seems a bit daft though doesn't it, especially when neither of the two biggest parties are that far from centre? What's so difficult about a bit of compromise? No party expects to be in power forever, it's a given that the leaders will change at some point.

I really hope something will change in our political system, because the FPTP system doesn't work, and nor does the way we allow our most important public services to become casualties of party politics.

With you all the way.
I don't know about health and the NHs but I do know in education that one reason the parties differ so much is because they don't bother consulting people who know what they are talking about. They have their own ideology and push it through at the expense of the kids in the system. If it was all based in sound research, with advice from experts and delivered by a committee of folk from across the parties, we might get somewhere. Instead it's delivered by one individual who bases it all on what he thinks he remembers from when he was at school. And then he loses his job and the next idiot steps up, tinkers a bit more, and then moves on....

That's exactly what I mean babybythesea, but you expressed it better!

If the politicians from either side were taking to the people who actually know how to deliver an effective education or healthcare system, then surely there wouldn't be all that much there for them to disagree on when they've already said the budgets will be protected.

but they do agree on many things, such as the NHS free at the point of use. The things they agree on, however, are in place and not changing. They only change/debate what they disagree on.
The trouble with experts is even they do not agree -
is homework worthwhile?
Do class sizes matter much?
Is being a subject matter expert more or less important than teacher training?
Is it better to ban something/tax it or nudge people's behaviour.

If there were obvious answers that all experts agreed on, then there would be consensus and we would move on to a new topic.

Totally agree baby, it's all ideology - when a bit of evidence-based pragmatism would be more effective, and a great deal more cost-efficient than being in a constant state of change.

Unfortunately both sides do this, making it very hard to have a sensible discussion especially about emotive issues like the NHS. I have to say that as a left-leaning person, living abroad and using a social insurance type healthcare system has changed my perspective. I do think the NHS could benefit hugely from looking at what works abroad. It's not just that these systems are better funded - although the good ones usually are, of course. They also have quite a different model for public-private cooperation and, yes, they even make charges as a way of reducing healthcare consumption at the margin.