It's more like polarisation between party supporters. The parties themselves become virtually indistinguishable. Choosing between Tories and Labour is like choosing between Coke and Pepsi. They have very much the same agendas and are only different on minor issues (in the grand scheme of things) that are blown out of proportions.
In addition to that, politics becomes a 'zero-sum game'. Meaning a loss for one is automatically a win for the other. In other countries in Europe we don't really have this mechanism and it takes a lot of the sharp edge off politics. Because getting the other parties to fail is not automatically a win.
I think especially in the US this latter point is very clear right now, one party is always trying to undermine the other, even at the cost of the country's interests (which was the one thing they were supposed to care about!). Using the shutdown as leverage is a typical example.
I think any system that reduces politics to a zero-sum-game should be avoided as much as possible to reduce this very phenomenon. Because while the two parties in the US are fighting in the streets over internal issues, Russia and China don't have any internal political issues and can take full advantage of this on a geopolitical scale. That's the handy thing of being a "one party system", as awful as it is.
Not saying the EU countries are perfect. Coalition forming is an awfully complex process and sometimes it takes years (I think Belgium was without a government for more than a year recently). It also leads to inaction or slow response times to external events by having too many parties at the table. But it doesn't lead to this kind of extreme infighting and stalemates.