Ultimately people prefer themselves to the state

The more democracy there is the easier it is for the people to hold the state to account. We can think of democracy as a kind of anarchy in that the people get to express their preferences in the ballot box without finding out how things would end up without a government. It is a way for people to protect themselves without using force, it is a kind of protection above the purest form of anarchy in which we would only find out what people think (and are able to protect) when force is used. In summary, democracy is very similar to anarchy but we might not think so because very few countries are fully-democratic.

The purest form of democracy is direct democracy with proportional representation coming a very close second because it is almost the same as direct democracy. (In fact we might even argue that pr is better than direct democracy because representatives are able to dedicate more time to the legislative process than typical people.)

Any form of government which is not fully-democratic will be larger and more oppressive than a democratic government because ultimately people prefer themselves to the state. For the government to oppress democracy is to protect themselves which is an act against anarchy. For the state to claim that to protect the first-past-the-post system from pr is an act of anti-socialism and pro-anarchy is not true. It is denialism to think that to oppress democracy is harmful to the state and so liberating. If we assume Tories think of themselves as being anti-socialism and are in favour of the fptp method then we have a contradiction because democracy is (in the long run) bad for socialism. To take this position is to be in denial of the truth that democracy and anarchy are associated and not contradictory.