Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

We've this kind of phenomenon in Spain (we call it "useful vote"), people voting parties they don't really like because they are the only ones that can beat the others they hate even more. FPTP seems to make it more extreme.

It's called tactical voting here and was used effectively against the Conservatives between 1997 & 2005.

I think it's a bit different if it does go like 2017 though. Tories and Labour went from 66% of the vote to 82% which I think was the highest shared vote since 1970. But I don't think we've returned to a country where 80+% of the people are Tory or Labour.

[Josquius]

If the UK were a democracy I'd be interested to see how well the greens do. In the Swiss election they did very well indeed.
Alas with the future of the country at stake now isn't the time to take long punts on minor parties. Stopping the Tories from getting a majority has to come before anything else.

[11B4V]

So where we at with this shit show?

[Tonitrus]

The dice are in the cup getting ready for another toss.

[celedhring]

Okay, I laughed at this one 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-8HIWscfY

Momentum are corbynites, right?

[Tamas]

So where we at with this shit show?

In this apparent democracy, the BBC will only debate Johnson vs Corbyn, nobody else.

[Valmy]

In this apparent democracy, the BBC will only debate Johnson vs Corbyn, nobody else.

That is a bunch of raging bullshit. Over 100 members of the House of Commons are in neither party.

How can a publicly funded entity be so brazenly politically partisan as to intentionally attempt to derail the election efforts of the other parties in this way? Well I guess I should be glad my tax money is not being used to fund this propaganda effort.

[Sheilbh]

I feel like the DNC and BBC should have a chat. Maybe find a middle way between inviting Lord Buckethead to seven debates and this.

[Valmy]

I feel like the DNC and BBC should have a chat. Maybe find a middle way between inviting Lord Buckethead to seven debates and this.

I mean I get there being some kind of polling minimum or funding minimum, like you have to be 3% of the UK or 20% in one of the constituent countries or something...but just announce that there are only two relevant parties running?

[Grey Fox]

Our Debate consortium here uses a 2 out of 3 qualification system.

Have atleast 1 sitting mp at dissolution
Field candidates in 90% of ridings
4% popular vote at the last election or polling high enough to have a "chance" to elect atleast 1 MP in the new election.

[Syt]

So where we at with this shit show?

In this apparent democracy, the BBC will only debate Johnson vs Corbyn, nobody else.

You misspelled "aberrant"

[celedhring]

Over here the rule is that every party that was above 5% in the last nationwide election gets a seat in the main debate(s).

[Agelastus]

In this apparent democracy, the BBC will only debate Johnson vs Corbyn, nobody else.

BBC -

◾22 November: A Question Time Leaders' Special at 19:00, hosted by Fiona Bruce. Conservative, Labour, SNP and the Lib Dem party leaders will take questions from the audience

◾29 November: A live debate from 19:00 with figures from the seven major political parties in the UK - Conservatives, Labour, Lib Dems, Scottish National Party (SNP), Greens, Plaid Cymru and the Brexit Party

◾6 December: A live head-to-head debate between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn. This will be hosted by Today presenter and former BBC political editor Nick Robinson from 20:30

◾9 December: Emma Barnett will host a Question Time Under 30 special, focused on an audience made up of young voters. It will be broadcast from 20:30

That is a bunch of raging bullshit. Over 100 members of the House of Commons are in neither party.

How can a publicly funded entity be so brazenly politically partisan as to intentionally attempt to derail the election efforts of the other parties in this way? Well I guess I should be glad my tax money is not being used to fund this propaganda effort.

Well...

(a) ITV - which is hosting this first debate and which the court case was about - is not publicly funded.

(b) As for the BBC - see above.

(c) As for the head-to-heads? Neither Corbyn nor Johnson want to have a seven way leader's debate, and with the leaders of both of the largest party in agreement over this (unlike in 2017) nobody's willing to push it and end up with no debates.

I wish it had turned out to be "no debates"; these live TV debates are a ridiculous Americanism of an intrusion into our political system - we are not electing a president, we are electing our local MP in 650 odd separate contests by either voting for our preferred choice or for our least undesirable choice, or if based on the country the manifesto we most agree with.

We are not electing a president. Despite the way all our parties are progressively shooting themselves in the foot by making it harder and harder to

(a) remove a leader or
(b) elect a leader who has the support of the large majority of their MPs.

I feel like the DNC and BBC should have a chat. Maybe find a middle way between inviting Lord Buckethead to seven debates and this.

Once again, see above.

Also, Sky News have proposed a debate between Corbyn, Swinson and Johnson for the 28th, but I don't know if that's going ahead or not.



------------------------------------------



The hysteria I've seen in this thread over the last few weeks from otherwise sensible posters has been very disappointing.

[Sheilbh]

Over here the rule is that every party that was above 5% in the last nationwide election gets a seat in the main debate(s).

There's no requirement to have a debate - the first was in 2010 - and, in theory, we have PMQs every week.

Also our politics have been strange. So for example, there's always been a question until recently of should Farage attend? UKIP were routinely polling above 10% but they've won a seat at a general election and their only two MPs defected. Now you might blame our system that you can win (in 2015) 12.5% of the vote and get 1 MP which is fair, but makes determining who gets to join difficult.

As it's not mandated it's a matter for negotiation between the parties and the broadcasters. But it's, or the rule used to be, that it's never in the interests of the favourite to accept a debate because they've got most to lose. Hence the moaning by the Lib Dems  who are no doubt hoping for another Clegg-ish break out moment.

Personally I don't particularly care. They were a novelty in 2010 and had a huge TV audience. That's fallen quite significantly even in the few election we've had since. I'm not sure debates add much - except maybe the possibility of a break-out moment for a minority party that will turn all the attention into 3 extra MPs

[Sheilbh]

Okay, I laughed at this one 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-8HIWscfY

Momentum are corbynites, right?

Yeah. They're very good, especially at social media.

In a sign of the social media arms gap, I saw lots of conservatives loling at how Momentum have fucked up if they're portraying themselves as the Joker