Why is British politics so fragmented?

Twitter's limit of 140 characters, for example, just doesn't allow for the finer points of an idea to come through. There can be no shading or context, only raw content.

Struggling to keep up with the huge amounts of information thrown at them by social media, users will often very quickly – and sometimes unconsciously – separate other users into camps of opinion.

It is a necessary activity of the human brain to simplify or find patterns within new phenomena or ideas. This allows us to function properly, without grinding to a halt under the weight of information overload.

However, rushing to judgement can mean that we miss something important or that we misinterpret what someone is telling us. It can also mean that we become unwilling to challenge our own preconceptions – about other people, or about their ideas.

Before long, people stop sharing and discussing ideas and resort to defending their camps of opinion like warring armies catapulting shot between walled cities. Each army will have its pejorative names for its opponents, building up such unpleasant narratives about them that finding any common ground becomes almost unimaginable.

This compartmentalisation of opinion is impacting our politics, on and outside of social media. Opinion too often morphs into obsession. Holding an open, exploratory debate often becomes less important than defending one's own pre-defined positions – and being seen, by friends, to do it well.

Opinion is vital. The expression of one's worldview in answer to pragmatic issues is a central part of political debate. It is a great boon to constructive, collective decision-making. But an obsessive person treats his opinion as the only one worth having. She mistakes disparity for bigotry and replaces reason with rage.

In the end, obsession leads some of us to use our freedom to deny freedom to others, by shouting down their voices or demanding them access. This is intellectual fascism.

Former Minister for Education, Michael Gove told the Daily Telegraph this week that people of Christian faith are marginalised in certain debates because they are intimidated.

Studies suggest that Britain has recently seen a marked rise in discrimination against Jews. Meanwhile, online trolling continues to oppress and suppress thousands of our young people.

Though there are many factors contributing to these problems, each of them has links to obsessive opinion-sharing within the cybersphere.

The political process must remain open to all. We may not see a return to one party government any time soon and that may not be such a bad thing. If they're handled well, coalitions can, like all alliances, provide creative tension which leads to innovation.

Yet we must find ways to share honest and opposing ideas, openly and without fear. In an age where cohesion is hard to come by, we must be able to be honest without resorting to the use of pejoratives or persecution.

Did the latest debate propel any one leader to the front of the pack? No. But it may have served a greater purpose, reminding us that opportunities to hold civilised and respectful debates are more important than ever.