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.

  • CyprianSceptre@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Rokk@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • modegrau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year 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.