Any basis for cooperation on the right + Democracy vs opportunism..

The debate about the possibility of a cooperation on the Right of Norwegian politics is going on. FrP (The Progress Party), of course wants to be let into the warmth with the other parties on the Right, having long been seen as the pariah party. The Right party, as the only one, seems to have moved a long way towards accepting a cooperation with FrP. The other Right parties, such as KrF (the Christian People`s Party) and Venstre, are declining any form of at least formal cooperation, even if that means giving up being in government after the next election. Without FrP a Right government will a hard born child.

While I`ve been, and still am, extremely sceptical to FrP getting into government, I am at the same time not sure it is good to rule out anything in principle. FrP is in my opinion, and in the opinion of many people, a very opportunistic one, and one that do not seem to be very responsible in its policies. Thus, I would definitely prefer the current government to one where FrP is a main part - and if it were a part of the government coalition it would be, because it is one of Norway`s two largest parties, and definitely the largest one on the Right side.

Still, one might argue that there is a slight possibility that FrP will start waking up, and become more aware that all it`s many promises will have consequences, if it gets a chance to govern.

One thing I read recently made me think. FrP argued that it is neutral to the question about Norwegian membership to the EU because the Norwegian public is divided on the question. This argument is representative of a lot of FrP policies. It might be argued that political parties should take into account the public opinion. But it seems to me that this argument of FrP is turned upside down. If the party policies on a given area is not clear, how are people supposed to be able to make up their minds if this is the party to vote for? Should a political party adjust it`s policies as soon as the wind of public opinion turns? Should not people vote based on how political parties make their stand on different issues - not parties changing their stand according to public opinion? It seems to me that FrP did not really catch the difference between democracy and opportunism.

The future of the Norwegian school..

After the resignation of the former Minister of Knowledge, Øystein Djupedal, his fellow party member, Bård Vegard Solhjell, has become the new wise man of education and knowledge in Norway. New minister, new policies - one of mr. Solhjell`s policies is to make the Norwegian primary and secondary school less theoretical.

The criticism from the Right is that SV (the Socialist Left Pary) and the rest of the Left is hysterically afraid of differences in the school. They want to make everything the same for everybody, not offering the more theory-hungry pupils what they want.

I agree in the criticism of the Right Party, but at the same time I realise that it is immensely hard for a lot of schools to offer adapted programs for all students. From my own experience as a teacher, I know that students are very different. And I know that it is really hard, to make the classes suit everybody`s learning style. And it is certainly true, as SV claims (and it is something that a lot of pupils, teachers, parents, politicians, and other realise, too), that a lot of students find a lot of theory boring.

At the same time, there are some students that find theory interesting and stimulating. These pupils should have the possibility of delving into theoretic subjects. In my opinion, these students should be viewed and appreciated as an asset for Norway. Of course we need the children that will go on to become construction workers, truck drivers, hairdressers, bakers, and plumbers. But we also need the more theoretically gifted pupils, and should nurture their talents. To do otherwise would be a grave mistake.