First past the post is bad for the poor

The reality of the two-party system is that people vote Labour to protect themselves from the rich Tories. They are not voting to oppress the Tories or to oppress the rich but merely in response to the winner-takes-all system. It is not surprising that the poor are not interested in voting for the Tories in a two-party system since the Tories continue to subsidise the rich.

The Labour party are a reaction to first-past-the-post and not an advocate of it. Historically speaking the Labour party emerged long after the two-party fptp system had been put into place. The Labour party (and their voters) cannot be accused of aggression given that they did not implement the system. They are merely protecting themselves from the Tories and the rich.

But if the two-party system offers no economically liberal party for the poor to vote for (hence the rise of Labour) then clearly it has failed the poor. That the poor must (generally) vote for Labour... they are trapped into voting Labour... establishes that the two-party system doesn't work for the poor and that fptp is bad for the poor. A proportional system would be much better for the poor because it would give the poor an alternative to the Labour party... because the Labour party do not seem very interested in learning about economics. The liberation of the poor will not be accomplished by (government) economic collectivism instead it will be achieved by removing subsidies from the rich which is not being offered by the Labour party (or the Tory party). So then the poor will only be liberated if the voting system changes to a proportional system.