The only justification for not doing this is protectionism. Starmer is placing party above country. We can see how damaging the Tories are. I do not want to see their likes again.

  • jabjoe@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    The best system looks to be Mixed Member PR. Like Germany and New Zealand. Keeps a form of local MPs lost with raw PR, while dealing with the democratic failing of raw FPTP.

    • Syldon@feddit.ukOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I disagree, but expect Labour to push for STV eventually. STV still gives Labour and Tories an edge. My preference is to remove that totally with PR.

        • Syldon@feddit.ukOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I call BS. Many MPs are parachuted into areas just because it is a safe seat. I currently have a MP who I really think is nothing more than a grifter, and yet I will be forced to vote for her as the alternative is a Tory win.

          • jabjoe@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Safe seats and Gerrymandering absolutely do undermine the concept of local MPs and FPTP. But I have written to my local MP a number of times and yes, mostly it’s political stuff that gets a generic response. BUT the one time it was about an unjust parking ticket, she did successfully cancel it. The big bad beast of politics do make a mockery of it, but there are plenty of hardworking MPs who do their job for their constituencies.

            If we only had national MPs, who do you write to about local matters? I’ve never been to a local MP surgery, but if I was in some kind of trouble I might.

            • Syldon@feddit.ukOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I have written to mine twice in the 13 years she has been in post. It was not a good experience with both events. She is as local as you can get, she used to live in my street till she moved out of the city. The problem with MPs is there is no accountability. You only have to look at how Dorries took the piss. There would be no loss by having an MP from further afield. Having one from your local area is not a guarantee they will be any better either.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I used to agree. But over the years i have seen any value totally troubced by party politics.

          Few local citizens have any real representation willing to listen under fptp today of much in the last 20 or so years.

          STV or others may improove that with multi MPs. But its hard to see we are lossing anything real with the current system.

          Any improovement need different pilitical motive then we have now. MPs think of representation as soldiers in a war. Ready to be sacrificed for the party line. Or there ow. Career. We need politicians who stand for local ideals first. Then party based on those local voters will.

          Sorry late rant got me there

            • HumanPenguin@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Given the comment I replyed to.

              I think lack of local MPs is a legitimate criticism of pure PR.

              I have no idea why you would think it was. I was arguing local representation dose not really exist in FPTP as it is envissanged,

              • jabjoe@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m arguing that local MPs are worth having, but FPTP is unrepresentative. With MMPR you get the best of both worlds.

  • CyprianSceptre@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    Disagree. PR means no local support. PR means city, particularly London, centred politics. That’s already bad enough - look at HS2 which was supposed to be for the north, but has ended up being an upgrade between London and Birmingham only.

    The fairest system is some sort of ranked choice, you can vote for the party you agree with most, without risking ‘wasting’ your vote and still get local representation.

    • modegrau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      The current system, which has local representation has not prevented SE centric policy, so why do you believe that maintaining that element needs to remain? Local MP’s given the illusion of local support, but why should that be a function of central government? HS2 is adding example of why local MP’s don’t work IMO. A significant part of why it’s over budget is wealthy NIMBYS and their pet MP. Local issues are just bargaining chips in Westminster.

      I’d argue the role played by local MP’S would be better served by the local authority.

    • Rokk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      London currently has 73 MPs out of 650 (11.2%) when they have 9mil out of 67million people (13.2%).

      So guess you’re right that they’d get stronger representation.

      However on the other hand, people like the Green party got 2.7% of the vote in 2019 while only getting 0.15% of the seats.

      Some voices get stronger, but it’s not just cities.