I've been thinking about how hard it is to get hold of a balanced opinion these days. Even the BBC have replaced balanced interviewees with 2 equally unbalanced ones on either side of whatever it is their talking about. One of the reasons that I've always been interested in the Lib Dems is that I see them as a party who try to take some of the best ideas from both sides of the political spectrum without losing sight of the ideas of both sides. Of course there's a risk that that will just lead to supeified inaction, but there can be a middle way, I think. I just don't think people will vote for it. Compromise isn't sexy or interesting to people nor, in general will it appeal to their self interest when there are other parties out there saying "We won't compromise! We'll put you first all the time". Its not true and people probably know it but they wish it was.
I always find the spots on the BBC either within the Today programme or in separate shows like the Week in Westminster where they talk to their correspondants about what's going on in politics much more illuminating than the bits where the politicians talk to each other. Perhaps it's that journalists get more benefit out of being right in what they say than politicians? I'm thinking about alternately taking left and right wing papers - perhaps out of the morass of random stories you could filter out the good ideas on either side. But then what would I do with them when I'd got them? Just get frustrated that they weren't being implemented I expect.
I used to be so excited by politics and current affairs. Now, it saddens me mostly. It seems to confirm most of what I think about human nature and not in a good way. But it's all we've got, in terms of guiding society, so I keep listening.