In theory, the idea of a coalition government is very appealing, and it would prevent the governing party from pushing through particularly unpopular measures. But in reality, would decisions ever be made? Controversial measures must often be put through, especially in the current crisis our country finds itself in, so maybe we need a government who is strong and determined, even if we do not necessarily agree on all policies or laws. All businesses and industries have suffered, and many still are suffering, from the current economic crisis. Tackling the government’s deficit is going to be unpopular, whichever party is in power, and will need a secure government to undertake the challenge.

Although a resulting coalition government may mean different views are represented with different party members occupying positions in the cabinet, would it not just become an issue of more self-serving politicians cutting deals for themselves to try to achieve top positions and ministerial roles, when our country’s rehabilitation should be the priority? Ultimately, the city requires certainty. Even if the ruling party take a hard-line approach, businesses need consistency, stability and authoritativeness. In addition, the value of the pound always seems to suffer at the thought of a hung parliament. It may be good for exports, but the majority of the UK’s business lies in imports, and for businesses dealing in Euros, the effects can be extremely damaging.

We are also forced to consider what a hung parliament says about democracy. True, different parties have a say in a consensual government, but there is no democracy if a party leader becomes Prime Minister with a minority vote. To my mind, Proportional Representation is the way to go. Parliamentary reform is advocated by the Liberal Democrats and is very popular in other countries, particularly across Europe and is adopted in different forms to suit the country. We already use PR for the European parliament elections and London Mayoral elections, so why not convert it to general elections? PR would give minority parties and independent candidates a national voice that the leading three parties do not necessarily represent. In addition, the current system is unrepresentative and leads to tactical voting, because people often feel they would be wasting their vote if their constituency is safely in the hands of a different party. With PR, everyone’s vote would count.

The concern with PR is that, in the difficult times we face, the system will not provide us with a government who will take control and do what’s necessary to get the country back on its feet, even if it makes them unpopular with some people. The coalition government that may be formed following a hung parliament would probably result in little being passed through and achieved. The mentality of PR, however, would lead to compromise and consensus, with the good of the country being of paramount importance above party politics and leading to firm, centrist policies.

It may be weaker but PR is fairer, and for me, it means everyone getting a voice. If people feel their vote is going to be a waste, they will vote tactically and their real views will not be heard - no wonder the Tories are against the idea. Surely it is about time things changed. In addition, with PR, MPs serve the constituencies they campaign in, meaning a greater focus on local issues – something that has been lost with the excess enthusiasm over party whips, whereby MPs are expected to take directions solely from the party leader rather than for the good of their local area. Maybe it is time to make the small things count: to look after our businesses, our hospitals, and our schools instead of this insipid search for celebrity that the party leaders seem so intent to seek.