Thread by @monlouhawk

I feel this otherwise excellent article misses the point entirely when it says "One of the strengths of the Westminster parliamentary system is that it occasionally produces governments with real power to effect change, should they try to enact it." 1/ theatlantic.com/international/…

This is hoping for two things to come along at once - a party with a good majority and a uniquely talented leader.

And at the same time expecting that party to act in the UK's long term interest, whereas the UK's parliamentary system uniquely rewards short termism. 2/

The major difference between the systems of the US / UK on the one hand, and Germany and the Netherlands on the other, is the difference between winner-takes-all systems, and cooperate & compromise systems.

3/

Which in my view is why the US doesn't have a national healthcare.

Why the UK hasn't managed to solve its social care problem. (And dare I say it, why the UK ended up with Brexit.)

4/

Not having to compromise and cooperate means not having to be transparent and not having to justify your workings.

It means slogans and soundbites work and can hide the failings.

5/

I'm disappointed that @TomMcTague doesn't touch on this - when the point of the article is to try to answer "why". The article still stops at observation and description of the problems.

Hoping for Johnson to do something amazing with this large majority is missing the point. /