This is the problem with making any sort of comment on here. You don't know the first thing about me or my thoughts but you base your assumption on a single comment aimed at nobody in particular.
You clearly want to engage and I do not.
Yes, if you make a comment on a discussion forum which someone doesn't agree with, often they will reply and enter into a discussion. Political discussions tend to be a bit more heated because they matter a lot more to real people than whether Ronaldo is better than Messi.
My first comment was expanding on your comment and explaining my thinking, in other words kicking off a discussion. You took a dismissive attitude to it, and I asked whether that dismissive attitude is healthy in politics because it followed on directly from the prior point - dismissing issues on the basis of party affiliations and low political standards.
If you'd replied to the first comment there would no assumptions, just a transparent discussion. If you only want people to agree with you, rather than present alternative opinions and try to dig deeper into the issue, then there are better places to do that than a forum designed for discussion.
In general, it's healthy in a democracy for political views to be challenged. People need to justify their beliefs and decisions because they impact on others in that democracy. In my view, it's a sign of a dysfunctional democracy if the very notion of that discussion is considered offensive. And I do think our democracy is dysfunctional so uncomfortable discussions are inevitable.
Isn't the truth of it,that we get the politicians we deserve?
Party politics is not democracy, its just "my gangs bigger, or better or in some case less 'unbelievable', than yours"; however if you elected (could elect) 650 individuals with no party affiliations and all honest upstanding and never tell lies, would we be any better off... and crucially, would anything ever get done?
I do think it's true that we get the politicians we deserve. We hold them to a very low standard and they happily fall to those standards.
I don't remotely agree that having more transparency, ethical standards, political alignment etc. would make things worse. The idea that this is just the way politics works, and if you tried to get more out of it you would just make things worse, is evidently untrue. The way politics works in the UK and the way it works in e.g. Norway is different. Things still get done.
There are trade-offs to make on any decision but that's just a straw man argument based on a conservative principle: we shouldn't change anything because we don't know if that other thing is better, usually it isn't, usually we've ended up with the best we can get. But whether you think that's true in general, it is demonstrably untrue on a case by case basis.
If you are happy with how things work and don't want to change anything, that's cool. I obviously have a different view. If you think things don't work, things are bad because of the choices we've made, but you still don't want to change anything, that's a huge political problem. I think it's endemic in British politics. It's apathy on an absurd scale.