Labservative defence of minority government

David Cameron exhibiting a lack of understanding of the issue. Nick Clegg: I could work with Labour, just not Gordon Brown | Politics | The Guardian: "Cameron accused Clegg of wanting PR 'so we have a permanent hung parliament, a permanent coalition, so we never have strong and authoritative and decisive government'"
So, what he's suggesting, by implication; is that we should continue to be governed by a bunch of people who have only gained the confidence of 30-40% of the voters. That it's okay for a government to by absolutely in charge when their share of the vote is potentially around 30% (in theory fptp could give a 'strong government' on, say, 20% of the vote). I call that dictatorship not democracy. A system which often requires parties to work colloboratively works very well in many countries. 'Strong government' is a cipher for letting non-electorally-majority governemnts ride roughshod over the majority of voters. Strong government is usually what is offered by dictatorships ...

I would be happy to see a system that would encourage collaborative government. Not a 'hung parliament', not even a 'balanced parliament' but a collaborative one. I think that's what people want: it's why we are turned off by the mud-slinging and negative campaigning. We want politicians to spend less time picking holes in each other and posturing and more time working for the good, listening and finding common ground. More truly proportional voting is more likely to deliver that as experience in, for example, New Zealand (who in the 90's went over to PR from a fptp system) would seem to indicate. Why the positive experiences of other countries are totally ignored; does Germany have an indecisive government? Not noticibly so yet it is a coalition government and has been since WW2.So let's have less of this apparently ill-informed scaremongering, or worse this well-informed but playing-on-general-ignorance scaremongering.