All ideologies are flawed. Apart from mine. Mine's great.

Parties exist to have some uniform system in government so it isn't 650 independants who can't agree on anything. It began because a like-minded set of people believed in roughly the same policies, and ideologies, and became a party. The problem with parties, and like-mindedness in general, is that all ideologies are flawed. The initial flaw in ideologies are that with each different person, they will have a different ideology. The individual has their own ideology and only theirs; people may think a like but if you talk long enough you'll find differences. The second problem, the more fundamental one, is that all ideologies believe in a utopia. Since a utopia is unachievable, a literal dream, then trying to achieve a society in a utopia is flawed.

Socialism is an amazing concept. It is the best form of government, and cannot be argued with since it means everyone is equal, innovation is at it's highest, and everyone is the happiest they could possibly be. But only in a socialist utopia. The same could be said about a capitalist society, where everyone gets a piece and even the poorest of the poor are uber-rich since the trickle-down effect works. But only in a capitalist utopia. So we're stuck at a standstill, where ideologies only work if the impossible can happen, and thus ideologies are worthless. You might as well be throwing pennies in a wishing well, or growing beans in your garden and changing your name. Ideologies are flawed because it's what we want, not what we can have.

The current system of government we have now, Conservative vs Labour (and Lib Dems and SNP etc etc but who really cares about them) is a two dimensional system. It's a 2D system in a 3D world, where different ideologies have to work together since believing wholly in one will create utter chaos (see USSR, or Germany 1938). The only way we can achieve relatively what we want is by compromising with the enemy.

This my interpretation of Churchill's quote "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." It shows how democracy, because it instigates separation of people and parties, is the only governmental system which can have a compromise. Democracy uses the people as pawns to elect those who are pawns to decide and debate and negotiate what they should do with their pawn lives. Alright, the chess analogy didn't work as well as expected there, but it means that only with democracy will we get the freedom of debate. Democracy is the only form of government that operates at a three dimensional level, getting what the left and the right want; in proportion to what the people want. Parties are used to create factions, but only when there is a large majority does this really matter, and when there is a large majority, it's because the people wanted it. Only when there is one party, a majority so large the others don't matter, is when a democratically elected government fails to be democratic. This is because there are divisions between the people who voted for the same party, but they did anyway since they had a major issue or out of desperation (like Hitler in 1933, where he was democratically elected). When a party becomes too large, it should split into separate factions to keep the democratic system alive. Otherwise we might all as well just get the Queen back into power and see what ideas she has, because apart from democracy, we're all out of them.