The thing with digi cameras is that there's a huge step between them, they go from meh, to waheh! in the space of a hundred bucks.
It's not about megapixels, it's about the quality of the lens and digitising process.
If you take a picture of your floor with an SLR, then it'll be sharp and clear, well defined, but most cheaper cameras will mangle that floor - it'll be a weird focus, colours will be washed out, but you only see this when comparing cameras.
If someone wants to take great photo's, then they need a good camera - it's really not an option to just be good at photography, because a cheap camera will never be able to produce photo's good enough. I mean, my camera as I said is not an SLR, it's kinda like a gap camera, it's older, but it would do a much better job than your camera I think - and it's not because I'm a good photographer. Once you have a good camera that can focus well, and has good colour balance, then those will at least be an option - with a good camera, any bad photo is down to the photographer, with a crud camera, your basically doomed from the start. I don't think you'll be able to do much better with the camera you have, and I'm sure you can get a lot better. I mean, you spent £300 on a camera, and sorry mate but my £50 second hand camera kicks it into touch. Maybe you should have a look on eBay, get an older camera so you get quality, not 'HD', or easy sharing (yeah like anyone with any knowledge ever needed that). For your £300 you could have gotten, for example:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-D40-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-lens-/310236968621?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item483b9076ad

Health, Ammo, and bacon and eggs!
