This is a problem for me. PR is a fairer system than FPTP because, as you say, it gives people more say. If UKIP represent a threat then so be it; who are we to deny people a voice. What PR would do in this case is force politicians to actually go out and win the argument rather than rely on the majority of voters putting their X next to one of the two main parties.
A problem I have had with Starmer and his supporters is that they have been using the argument that he is 'keeping his powder dry' or that he is saying one thing but as soon as he gets power he will do the opposite because until he gets power his hands are tied. For me a good politician puts his cards on the table and then goes out and presents his argument to the public. In Germany we have a situation where a party that wanted to legalise cannabis won enough seats to be part of the coalition and insisted that legislation should be considered as part of the deal. In this country we have Starmer, only last week making the argument that weed is evil, because in a two party state he feels compelled to do so. Although I don't personally like Starmer I would say that this is as much a fault of our system as the man and FPTP is a barrier to progressive politics.
Yeah, I don't disagree with those PR aspects, it's just how much you think each of those carry weight.
Yes, it's fair enough that PR does give people more say, or should make the seat numbers more accurate, so it should be fairer in theory. But the game is already not fair, due to the media being right/ far right. Effectively Labour voters thinking PR would make it fairer, but all it really does is guarantee being in permanent opposition with our current makeup of where people sit on the political spectrum, and this would end up a lot worse for the left than having Starmer in.
PR effectively will always equal out to where the people sit on average, which is fairly central, probably even right of centre at the minute. PR wouldn't get anything drastic done for the good, but I suppose a benefit is it shouldn't allow anything drastically bad, but having Labour with Starmer won't allow that drastically bad either, as the Tories and far right would have zero power.
Then for every Labour voter who might be say 30% left of centre, you will have at least one UKIP/ BNP type guy who is 45% right of centre, the actual value of it just doesn't work. You will need to offset those right guys by the same number on the political spectrum who are far left, probably similar to greens, and it just doesn't have the numbers to make it viable.
Labour won't want it, as it's a permanent sacrifice/ loss, and Tories don't want it as they already win 2/3 of the time.
He won't say one thing and do the opposite, he'll try and do what's in the manifesto. Things may change between the manifesto and implementation which may alter that, but that's fine, it's how it needs to be, priorities change.
The cards on the table thing only works in a fair system, where the media is equal for and against, and those who look at that media are equal for and against. The problem is the media is very much to the right, and the people this media appeals to are older (more likely to vote), and more likely to be right-leaning, or be more well-off (Tories). You can't play this a conventional way, as the deck is stacked, and you have to accept it's stacked and play accordingly.
You're not likely to sway people (long term) with words, you can only really do that with actions, and to do that you need to win of course. Starmer saying things in PMQ's or out on the street will do little, as the far right don't watch it/ want to see it, and they certainly don't read the guardian etc. What they get to see is headlines where the point has been missed, so that it intentionally stacks the deck right.
I totally agree that FPTP would be progressive politics, but only progressive in that it would actually result in us seeing what the UK people are actually all about, and the damage the UKIP and BNP lot would do is just not worth it. FPTP can't work with stacked media, and where old people vote more than younger people. I would love it if this wasn't the case, but it's not reality.
that's your argument, right?
