Parties that support fptp do not want a small state

We have conflicting definitions of what it means to be left and right-wing and often differing interpretations of the aims of the established parties. Both small government and fptp are conventionally seen as right-wing... for some reason fptp is seen as a right-wing position. Perhaps the reason for this is that where it exists fptp is seen as conventional and therefore conservative or perhaps the reason is that those parties endorsing it are falsely seen by most people as wanting to reduce the state. However fptp produces big government so we must either alter and reject our definition of left and right-wing to mean small and large government respectively or think of the parties in a different way. We must realise the party which we previously assumed was for a small state is not at all. If left-wing is to continue to mean big government (which seems reasonable) then any party supporting fptp is in fact on the left not the right with the opposite being true for pr... parties which support pr must be seen as government-contracting right-wing parties. It is not merely a quixotic anomaly that right-wing parties support fptp but are otherwise for a small state the means by which the parties gain their power supersedes other policies. Support for either fptp or pr is stronger in determining if a party is for a small or large state than other policies. If a party does not favour pr when compared with fptp they are not for a small government and they are not right wing whatever else their policies might be. To be right wing is to favour pr over fptp. It is anomalous that a right wing (pr-supporting) party would also be for high taxes but that is of less significance than their stance on how the government should be elected. The primary concern in defining whether a party is for a smaller state or not is whether they support pr. If a party is not for pr they are not right-wing.