Josie's Post column arguing we don't need more bipartisanship is here:

Who would want disunity and a festival of Chris on Chris squabbling? Who could oppose the agreeable consensus of a post-politics parliament?

Well, me.

I sense there is unusual public appetite for grown-up conversations about trade-offs and what we have to give up to get what we want.

The Opportunity Party’s idea is that parties would make smart bipartisan agreements in the national interest if only politicians were not so rubbish. It’s the kind of shallow profundity you hear at a dinner party, with all the depth of a consommé.

The point of democracy is to choose.

Democracy is meant to manage policy by disagreeing: messily, even angrily. Regular elections surface conflict and tensions between us that already exists.

Groupthink during Covid gave us polarisation, suppressed debate about inflation and debt that we will still be paying for in 2030, and implanted the fiasco of lotteries for managed isolation in hotels.

Perhaps you think those choices were all perfect. But perhaps some choices may have been even more perfect if we had tolerated more debate and less kindness.

Facile ideas about unity cannot substitute for the tough choices we need to make about the best things to do first.