~....................Nobody deserves to win a General Election at the moment. .......................~
(rest edited for reply to stay within the word limit)
With nothing to argue over in what you post, let me say, since your thread poses a question overall, that in my book the question falls short of an issue holding far more importance for the future.
WHAT NEXT FOR BRITAIN???
I do not mean wrt solely to Brexit or with regard to the decline of the Tories as we both once knew them, no the question pertains to whether Brits wish to maintain an organizational state structure (thinking electoral system, thinking constitutional system, thinking system both of political and thus democratic representation)that is so blatantly faulty as we come to see in this catastrophe.
I pointed out elsewhere that Westminster is not Weimar and I vociferously maintain that assessment. This should not lead anyone, however, to close their eyes to the fact of certain parallels showing themselves.
One of those being that the electoral system, such as it is today, leaves the door open for democracy to be, if not destroyed, heavily compromised by democratic means. This is of course already heavily criticized by those who see the will of the people currently contravened by the will of parliament, with the most undemocratic political factions gleefully exploiting this public perception. What appears to enter public intelligence not at all though is that those very exploiters are a far greater problem than a sovereign parliament that has been elected by the people and pursues the good of the country, however much public opinion may meanwhile have been manipulated towards opposite conclusions.
To wit, the electoral system of "first past the post" is an abomination, potentially holding the danger of the will of the people finding no representation at all. That it is designed to provide "a strong government" rather than to potentially have to put up with a government that can perhaps only be formed by the often tedious process of coalition with other "unpalatables" is all very well. What it also opens windows and doors to, however, is not only a government as we currently see it, but that same government finding confirmation in whatever future election, while being nowhere near securing the majority of votes.
To wit, what use is a head of state that is compelled by unquestionable (and thus unshakable) tradition to do the bidding of whoever is seated in No. 10? Even if that someone can defy laws that parliament has passed, can defy the outcome of any no-confidence vote by simply refusing to leave office and can indeed, in the process of both, drive the country into the wall?.
Not to be misunderstood here, I am NOT anti-monarchy, nor am I pro. But a monarch precluded completely from stepping in should be confined to being a tourist attraction by now and not be abused by seemingly holding a political importance that s/he does not,
To wit (finally), a modern democracy (better said a state deeming itself to be governed on democratic principles) cannot, in the long run, function without a constitution. And despite indignant protests that I hear already of Britain having one, it does NOT. Because where things worked so far to everybody's satisfaction, there was always bound to be a time when they would not, and today is one of those times.
As a consequence of which what we have this very moment is a bunch of (self-proclaimed) "Spartans" running rough-shod over any principle of a sovereign parliament, with their declared ambition of, once succeeding completely, de-regulating just about anything sensibly regulated so far, creating a Manchester capitalist's paradise of low wages, a financial shark's playground, and no workers' rights whatsoever.
And let anyone champing on the bit to call me a socialist, wrap his unqualified opinion into a wad and shove it where the sun don't shine (I despise Corbyn heartily for a variety of reasons and his Marxist lean is one of them).
Aside all of all of which, the Spartans' ambition to turn Britain into (quote) a Singapore on the Thames (unquote) is as blatantly and myopically stupid as everything else they're embarked upon. Not only is the comparison moot (were such a status even achievable), the conditions of the two countries (let alone their respective peoples) cannot be remotely equated.
The UK prides itself on having a system of checks and balances as much as any other modern democracy. We clearly see that it doesn't, certainly not to that moire favorable extent seen elsewhere.
