Governments, however made up, should act in the interests of the most number of people and should, logically, end up as centrist. Whenever a government makes a decision, it will inevitably disadvantage one group. What we've seen, particularly over the last six years, is the same groups of people advantaged and disadvantaged to the extent that the disadvantaged have had enough.
Unfortunately governments don't act in the long-term interest of the country (ie society as a whole), because they're more interested in buying votes from their supporters or those they would like to persuade to support them.
I have found that voters in some other countries are more aware of the interests of the country and political processes. They are more prepared to accept compromises rather than only want what's in it for them.
When casting a single vote in a general election, we are accepting a whole package of policies and, therefore, making compromises. FPTP forces tactical voting on some people, because they opt for the best of two evils. I have never ever agreed with any single party on everything and my vote has never counted anyway. I guess there are many millions of people in the same situation. Democracy as most people seem to understand it is an illusion.
In my ideal scifi world, we would be presented with a list of issues (the economy, ways of financing the NHS, aims of education, laws, need for investment, etc) and we would vote on a scale of 1 to 10. People would need to be informed about consequences from reliable sources. The results would be collated and the government's role would be to balance all the various opinions. There would also need to be safety nets to protect minorities and to ensure the law is upheld. There would be no need for political parties.