Without being too specific, our current system of politics has its roots in the 17th century. The population of the United Kingdom was about 6.5 million, the population of London about 600,000. Most of the population was involved in agriculture and for most people abject poverty was a life time certainty.
The political systems that evolved reflected this state of play. With most politics being decided by a very small number of men, formed in to two groups that in the main reflected the two sides of the conflict that had proceeded the whole change in direction.
I'm simplifying things massively as the point is not in the detail. The third party didn't appear until 1900 having grown out of the trade unions and socialist groups of the 19th century. The population by then was about two-thirds of what we have now, but the structure of the population/society was not a great deal different to what we'd had since the Monarchy was eased to one side. A large mass of workers, a very small middle class and an aristocracy.
With the creation of the third party the great mass of people within the country now had a voice and there can be no argument but, that since the intervention of the third party the vast majority of people within the country have seen their situation improve.. dramatically.
Unfortunately what we have now is still the same two structure spectrum of politics that we started with when Oli sat in the seat of power. But now, instead of two parties basically contesting for leadership; we have two opposite ends of the political argument fighting over who or what is right. Our society is much more complicated now and this system is not fit for purpose.
The 'working masses'; I don't want to revert to labels that involve class as we have moved on; are much more stratified now. There is a group of people that don't work; there is still a significant agricultural group; there is a large segment working in the public sector and there are tranches within the key areas of health and education. It is no longer a simple homogenous group of workers.
We also have a much larger middle class, and an 'aristocracy' (rich people) that are a real mix of new and old money, with new money being ever increasingly influenced by celebrity.
For many, who to vote for is only a choice of who is the 'least painful'. If you're an individual running their own plumbing business, with a few dozen employees,, most of whom are almost friends; and if that company is doing well, you could easily have an income that is better than most amongst the 'middle' classes. The two parties that you have to chose from don't really fit the 'conservative' demands of your business and the 'socialist' benevolence that is part and parcel of your company's structure.
The whole system can be considered a little bit like a bell curve. We have a political system that is based on the areas at either end of curve, almost outside the two standard deviations either side of the norm. But the greater mass of the population are somewhere in the middle. And much more importantly this bell curve is not in two dimensions. Society is much more complex now.
An example. Why are 'green' issues somehow the property of the left? (or maybe liberal) They are not, they are an issue for everyone. But for some reason there is a pressure to suggest that the left care and the right don't. It is all such nonsense. It is all a massive distraction that prevents us as a society from moving forward.
Proportional representation could be argued to be a step in the right direction but it will take more than that. The initial step, perhaps, would be a new party that was lead by a moral individual who's ambition was no more and no less than a future that was better than the present.