The time has come to strike down the ridiculous argument that an overall majority for either party is the only way to achieve strong government – and that a hung parliament would be weak.

Actually, as all schoolchildren know, bullies are inherently weak.

A government dominated by one party, or in the case of Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher, one individual, simply means power in fewer hands, less need to debate the best solutions for the country as a whole, and makes it easier to take decisions.

It is well known that better decisions actually come out of consensus, than out of the dictatorial process that our so-called democracy permits.

Yes, it takes longer to agree, and people fall out occasionally, but the decisions are better and fewer have to be reversed (with all that implies in terms of lost time and cost to all of us).

Leaders certainly have to be tough to enter into such a process. They need to be prepared to have people disagree with them, and even stop them doing what they want to do.

It needs courage, determination and humility to enter into such a process.

None of these qualities are needed to shout across a debating chamber, then go into an office and tell everyone what has been decided.

So an absolute majority under our present electoral system produces weak government, but a proportional system that gave a balanced result would lead to strong government.

Why then do the Labour and Conservative parties each want absolute power?

Can it be that they haven’t heard what absolute power does to individuals and parties?

Can it be that they believe they are uncorrupted, being so popular and trusted by the public that they are entitled to reassume power yet again?

Either the public has lost touch with reality, or the politicians have.

Or perhaps it is all just a nasty dream.

Peter Gale, Great Coxwell