The dangers of consensus

One of the most seductive illusions of modern politics is that we would be better governed if we could end the constant battle between government and opposition, and bring together the best talents from both sides to work together in the national interest. The shock result of the first round of voting in the French presidential election provides a signal warning of the dangers of consensus.

For five years, the right-of-centre President Chirac and left-of-centre Prime Minister Jospin have run the country together. As a result, voters unhappy with "the government" could register their protest only by turning to one of the fringe parties. Jean-Marie Le Pen was the biggest beneficiary, but other candidates from the far right and far left also gathered an astonishing total of 47 per cent of the vote between them. This is not the first time the established parties in a European democracy have been punished for working too closely together. It happened two years ago in Austria, when Jorges Haider's neo-fascist Freedom party won 25 per cent of the vote by campaigning against the outgoing coalition of Christian Democrats and Socialists.

We in Britain might seem to be immune from these horrors. Our electoral system is designed to be dominated by two large parties, and so provide us with a clear-cut choice at each election. If we want to "throw the rascals out", we normally have a reasonable alternative to which to turn. Yet for this we also need two strong parties, both of which are able to address the worries of the wider electorate. At the moment, we have instead a seemingly deaf government and a weak opposition. As a result, turnouts are well down.

Apathy, not New Labour, was the real winner of the general election last year - and an opinion poll today shows that only about one in five voters will bother to turn out in the local elections next week. As a result there are real fears of the British National Party winning seats in Burnley and Oldham. Thanks to our election system, the BNP has nothing like the strength of the farright in France, Austria or Italy; but both Labour and the Conservatives need to address their failings. Above all, they must stop trying to sweep difficult issues, ranging from immigration to street crime, under the political carpet.

NHS hospitals do their utmost to retain nurses, through bonuses, reward schemes and flexible holiday time, but most nurses simply cannot afford to live in London and have to add long hours of travel to their heavy workloads. As nurses leave the profession, the burden on those remaining becomes heavier yet; meanwhile, nursing agencies temporarily fill the vacancies, charging up to £1,000 for a single hospital shift, of which only a percentage goes to the nurses themselves. Mr Milburn appears to be paving the way for an end to national pay bargaining - an essential measure if London nurses are to be given the special weighting they need. Meanwhile, the London office of the NHS has instituted a rigorous tendering process to select nursing agencies which give value for money. All London's hospital trusts should sign up to this before contracting out nursing work.