I have a fantasy of a Parliament run for the benefit of the people. Does a coalition have better outcomes? I don’t favour one party rule however.
I'm with you ronib.
People lament that with a coalition, it slows down the parliamentary process. Maybe to some extent it would / does, but I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Certainly if you look at some of the the u-turns this current government has had to make during its tenure because of ill-thought-through enactments / plans, hastily put together and rejected by the electorate, it does beg the question of whether a slower process might not be a bad thing.
Norway has such a coalition. When I lived and worked there I wasn't aware of any chaos caused by the parties having to confer and agree. All parties appear to be invested in the welfare and prosperity of the nation as a whole, as opposed to their own aggrandisement and personal ambition(s).
One party rule - be it right or left - doesn't strike me either as being the best for our country... look at the flippin' mess we're in at the moment. A coalition puts a brake on individuals like Boris Johnson and, had he been in power, Jeremy Corbyn... they can't just march ahead and ride rough-shod over the electorate.
The nation appears to want either / or but it's quite clear that both the Tories and Labour recognise we're still more middle-of-the-road and extremes of either left or right don't go down well. Which is why, I suppose, some people are convinced that the Tories are now 'left-wing' and that Starmer is just a red-rosette with a Tory agenda, both parties are having to compromise. We want a one-party government, but then oppose its ideologies and policies when we get it.