We only get to vote once every five years, and then they only need 35% of the vote to win power.
If a similar proportion had voted your favoured party into power, would you still complain? How often do you think general elections should be held? Too long, and the ruling party can ignore the population. Too short, and no government would be able to table a meaningful legislative programme.
I'm all for a more proportionate form of representation, but don't make the mistake of thinking that PR is nirvana. It can often end up handing disproportionate power to coalition partners, who have tiny percentages of the votes. More proportional yes, but is it fairer?
Two thirds of us voted Labour out in 2005 yet they're still here. You must have confused Britain with a democracy or something.
Everyone can agree on what they don't want. The reason Labour are still in power is because they represented the largest positive block vote.
What's the alternative? Having every decision ratified by popular plebiscite? Very laudable, but I just can't see it working.
It was the Labour government who reformed the House of Lords and filled it with their own friends and donors. Like I said, you're thinking of democracies. Even the Germans got to vote for Hitler.
Well, if they filled it with their supporters only, they did a fucking poor job! Labour is in a minority in the HoL, by a considerable margin (215 peers out of 735). Yeah, really stuffed the ballot there.
The real problem with the HoL is that, stripped of its permanent Tory majority (the hereditaries), no-one can now agree on what to do with it. Fully elected, partially elected, continue as is - what? Again - everyone can agree on what they don't want. Building a consensus (which is necessary for consitutional reform) is much, much harder.
You sound like you have some reform ideas. I, for one, would like to hear them.