I agree.
It was definitely a case of there only being one party that seemed functional, capable, and ready to lead. I think being able to form a strong government was hugely important, and a coalition wouldn't really have been in anyone's interests.
Labour just aren't ready to be back in power. Ed was out of his depth, and I would also seriously question his ability to operate effectively in the theatre of global politics.
"Functional, capable and ready to lead" isn't exactly relevant when the party in question weren't voted for by two thirds of the electorate.
I'm not an Ed defender, but you can't question that ability because he never came near that context. We've never seen how he operates in global politics. He's never been tried or tested. The only thing we have to go on is his not-great public persona and his surprisingly sound principles on a lot of issues. Neither of which tell us anything about what he would have been like as a leader.
The whole system is sick, sick, sick.
Well, I unashamedly put my family before anyone else. Those are the people I have a duty of care to.
I don't care if that makes some people say I'm selfish.
Nationa/local government provides a way for us to care for millions, even tens of millions of people at once.
It gives us a way of increasing that 'duty of care' to envelop lots more people than just ourselves.
That's the bloody point.
The point in democracy, voting and organised society. We can do what's best for most people and vote according to what's best for most people.