Yes, as they might see it for the great good...and the 'greater good' is being in power, part of a government that can accomplish things and whatever their shade of opinion within their party, all MP's are subjected to, or subject themselves to, the party Whips.
When you have a number of differing parties, trying to participate in governance each with its own sense of being, then even more boundaries are created. Also even if some are broadly aligned on the left, on the right, or even in the centre, they are subject to their own membership rules and regulations, operation procedures; etc; hence you have the same leadership machinations/intrigues as you have in the larger parties, the same objections/ differing emphasis in policy matters, the same tendency to want to 'deal'; inertia in a government is the worst sin of all at times, and when there are more than two parties in any coalition, inertia is much more likely to occur.
It is true that some countries, their population mix, their constitutions, their geography and even their history may make a 'better fit' for PR than others, but as I said before its my view that without a written constitution, that involves more than precedent, and still retaining an 'island race' mentality, which over the centuries the majority of immigrants embrace, then simple PR is not the solution for the UK. Its possible, e.g. if the UK were to break up, then PR lite or PR+ might be an answer, but at the present I don't see that occurring.
Last edited:
