Martin William Smith wrote:

[...]

>There are political debates and discussions all year round on TV.
>They are not American style mud slinging "debates" but useful
>discussions.

Yes, I suppose it's a bit pointless to sling mud at people when
personalities are irrelevant.

> Often, representatives of public interest groups are
>invited who then ask questions of the parties.  For example, we had
>one a few weeks ago where representatives from an Islamic immigrant
>organization were invited to confront the "prograssive" party on the
>allegedly racist immigration policies in its platform.  These sorts of
>meetings are frequent on Norwegian TV, and they are held live in prime
>time.

You speak as if this was something odd?
>
>The government is always a coalition.  It doesn't have to work out
>that way but it seems like an effect of the parties sticking to their
>platforms.

More likely largely to do with the parliament being elected by proportional
representation. I find it difficult to conceive of a political system where
parties stick closely to their platforms. ;-)

>  The only way to get the right combination of party
>policies is to have a coalition.  You would think that the parties
>would change their platforms to be more like what Mr and Mrs Knudsen
>say they want in the polls, which would result in an American style
>system where the Democrats differ from the Republicans in name only.
>But they don't do that in Norway.  The Socialist Left party is always
>the Socialist Left party.  The Labor Party is always the Labor party.

The thing with a proportional representation system is that a minority
party has an incentive to be somewhat loyal to that minority interest,
rather than try to be all things to all people. If the party does the
latter, then the minority they depend on may well abandon them, without any
guarantee that anyone else will believe them and change their vote.