It's easy to assume that if an idea were any good, some party would be winning with it. That assumes the contest rewards being right. Mostly it rewards being watchable.
Crossbencher · 18 July 2026
There's a respectable case that unelectable ideas deserve their fate. Politics isn't a seminar. It's the work of persuading millions of people who are busy, distracted, and entitled to disagree. A platform that can't be sold to them has failed at the central task of democracy, which is winning consent, not being right in private. "The public didn't buy it" is a real verdict. A party that treats its own failure to communicate as the voters' stupidity has learned nothing. All of that holds.
It holds, and it isn't the whole picture. The trait the contest rewards and the trait that governs well aren't the same trait. The gap between them is where good answers go to die. An election rewards attention: the vivid promise, the clean enemy, the line that travels. Government rewards the opposite: patience, trade-offs, the dull competence that delivers a result two parliaments later with no photograph attached. A system built to reward the first will always under-supply the second. Not because voters are fools. Because the medium has its own tastes, and watchability is one of them.
Members only
Every writer, every column
The last 30 days of the argument are free for everyone, always. The archive beyond that is a Member thing - it is part of what keeps the whole record free.
One email a day: today’s quiz, the Bench question, the argument and what broke - every figure with its source. Free, and it saves your streak. Stop it any time from one link at the bottom of it.