If you thought Straner was bad....

Moot. Parties with a leader, destined to be PM, have

fairly but not universally true

Only Blair has managed more than one consequtive term and it's hard to claim that he was ever real Labour

The pom voters don't think much of Labour

And we have now seen 4 PMs in 3 years and 7 in 10 years.

What a shambles

Not moot at all. We vote for MPs as people, not for their party so no bye-election if they switch parties. The party with most MPs governs and its leader is PM, whenever appointed.

We need PR, pure PR.

And that is true but can change the next day, people seem to have a problem understanding it.

You speak for yourself, not for people generally, people who understand the position know what they are voting for.

Most vote for the party, not for the particular individual in their seat

Come on, can you not remember people berating Corbyn for failing to tell Labour voters clearly enough which way to vote in 2016?

How many people really do think for themselves? And can you imagine a member of one of the tribes now in the UK failing to vote for one of their own if one is standing?

Always astonishes me that people on social media feel they have a mandate to speak for "most".

You don't.

In general people vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of evils at the time of the election, alternatively they just have a protest vote.

The public realise that what a UK politician says before an election and what he actually does once in power are completely different things.

He will make veganism compulsory.

No,. we vote for the local representative of a party, andby extension, its leader

Thats the REALITY no matter what you theory says

No w e dont.

The idea of a minority extreme party holding power fills me with horror. Israel is a case in point.

Not my theory, it's the legal position.

And its not just holding power either, having an influence on policy like happens with the greens in germany

And gross instability in politics like has been seen with Italy

And not being able to form the govt as we have seen with Belgium

No thanks

There's an argument for it, not that it produces more effective government, but that it produces *less* effective government.

Almost all the harm in the world which isn't due to natural disasters is due to government action. A permanent coalition can do almost nothing too radical, since 'compromise' means not that everyone gets what they want, but that nobody gets what they want. Nobody wins, but nobody loses completely. The EU is much less harmful than it could be because of the national veto, which is why the ruling class are so desperate to get rid of it.

Frank Herbert solved the problem of runaway government by creating the Bureau of Sabotage, which existed to derail government plans. I can't see that working in real life, but it was an entertaining concept. A permanent coalition seems to work almost as well.

In theory, yes.

In theory its illegal to shoplift too, or enter the country on a rubber boat without a visa or a passport...

Indeed. And that's why the EU doesn't have elections at all.