How you say that with a straight face, I don't know. If you don't have enough votes to make those decisions, then you can't make those decisions. It's called democracy, and you were making out you supported it earlier in this thread.
You're the one telling people that the representation at Westminster doesn't reflect the democratic will of the people, and then somehow go on to defend the liberals forming a coalition and agreeing to implement policies against the wishes of the people who voted for them. And then you even go on to deride a situation that asks the public for their their opinion at the polls!
Your musings on democracy seem very hollow.
I think our democracy makes a farce of the concept Mike, and I've long made that absolutely clear, so you can shove your hollow jibes
The Lib Dems pushed to try and change the system, however minor, and it was a progressive step in the right direction. The people who for so long have become apathetic about politics, cynical of politicians, complaining they don't serve the will of the people... have opted to maintain the status quo. Fair enough
The Lib Dems did exactly what the current system allows them, nigh expects them to do in the situation we were faced with. Cameron courted the Lib Dems too remember. It gave the country strong Government, with most of the people's interests at least partial served - each got some of their policies realised in Government. Our press and public reaction to the idea that two parties with different outlooks could actually work together has been pathetic and childish. We moan about tribal politics, then can't see past that prism view ourselves. No, we have to have a system that artificially inflates the power of the top party of the day to get anything done
I'd completely overhaul the way we 'do' democracy in this country Mike, but that isn't on the table, and won't be for a very long time now