How a Labour Win Could Block the Tories out for Decades - TLDR News

Sign up for a CuriosityStream subscription and also get a FREE Nebula subscription (the streaming platform built by creators): CuriosityStream.com/TLDRuk
Daily Briefing KZbin: / tldrdaily
Daily Briefing Podcast: art19.com/shows/the-daily-bri...
Labour might have been out of power for 12 years but it seems that they might have a new path to victory. So in this video we discuss the latest data & alliances which could not only get Starmer into Number 10 but also block the Tories out for decades
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Discord: tldrnews.co.uk/discord/
SUBMIT YOUR VIDEO IDEAS: forms.gle/pPY3HQ6ZtfsSbwTBA
TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-sum...
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!: / tldrnewsuk

[@bradw8102]

Democracy isn't about winners and losers. It's about representation. FPTP is undemocratic for this reason.

[@WillCarrollHamilton]

MMP for me

[@emib6599]

An interesting discussion is about, what is democracy, if is only about the "value of the vote 🗳 of a person" .... It can really change from person to person Someone say that in a true democracy every vote should value one vote, not more not less. Having people with special conditions of vote or even the veto ability it isn't democratic. Other says that a true democracy give representation to even the smallest group, so some vote should have more influential value and other less, and you should give to that small 1% group even the ability to influence the decision of the other 99%... The problem is that both arguments seems valid.

[@mab9614]

A democratic society becomes “democratic” when we go and vote. The last time voter turnout went above 70% in a general election was 1997. When you don’t vote, you still complain about the outcome. What? FPTP has flaws. I won’t deny that, but MMP also has its flaws. You can take a look at how the German parliament swelled to a monstrous size. The Germans called it “ big fat Bundestag.” I personally prefer the open list voting system in Sweden and Finland.

[@kennethkho7165]

some drunk lords centuries ago decided that fptp is how elections should be done

[@stixinst5791]

@@emib6599 that us why noone has direct democracy where people decide themselves in national referwndums....because people are stupid AF they get to choose out of 2-100 representatives that decide the matter as autocrats would

[@SRFriso94]

The vote split is actually worse than it appears in that chart from the Electoral Reform Society, because of tactical voting. Every election in the UK would look radically different, and most likely a lot worse for the two major parties.

[@theuglykwan]

Good!!!

[@brusselssprouts560]

The priority is to get rid of this detritus and then a proper grown up negotiation can happen, while the damage done is repaired,

[@brusselssprouts560]

@@Gary-bz1rf To what? I am saying that the party who seem heel bent on destroying the UK economy and UK presidents' personal freedoms is the first necessary step and then a proper debate in a new proper debating chamber which is what the HoC should and has been can have a proper talk about changes to the electoral system that lets all voters, wherever they live to have their voice heard. This is democracy and FPTP isn't. I do not understand why you cannot see my point, but again democracy allows this and should prevail. I do not mean give in at all. I mean motivate people to vote particularly when they think there is no point, which in the 2020 USA Presidential Election it worked, and under a different system Trump and Johnson would have been nowhere near the ability they have meted on others.

[@brusselssprouts560]

@@Gary-bz1rf Voila! "Sir" Roger Gale will agree with this then disagree as he is a Party controlled minion, but shouldn't be. Once electoral reform is sorted, the "Whips" system should be disbanded, and the Speakers' powers need to be enhanced.

[@pronumeral1446]

You guys desperately need a different system for your House of Commons. Either ranked choice (also known as instant runoff, preferential etc) or MMP like Germany and New Zealand have. FPTP is literally the worst possible voting system. Look at Australia's recent federal election: Australian Labor Party were able to win for the first time in 9 years, because Greens voters tended to ranked Labor as their 2nd choice on the ballot. The Greens also picked up some extra lower house seats for the first time ever, with Labor Party voters tending to rank the Greens 2nd. Essentially, Aussie voters were able to put their favourite party first, and their "lesser of 2 evils" second or third ... without worrying about splitting the vote. The Greens have now become the most powerful third party in Australia, since WW2. Meanwhile a number of fiscally conservative-socially progressive independents were able to take safe Liberal (basically our tories) seats away, by promising real climate action, again thanks to ranked choice.

[@edberger7712]

A similar thing happened in our election here in Australia the other day, the Coalition (essentially the Tories) have been absolutely decimated by Labor, the Greens and a group of independents with essentially the same stance as the Lib Dems. There was no electoral pact per se, but there was a lot of tactical voting and it delivered the Coalition their biggest defeat since 1946.

[@Steven-fv8xw]

would Australian public consider replacing single member district voting/ranked choice voting with proportional representation?

[@liamcollins9183]

And Australia has AV, so no spoiler effect. A person can vote for as many minor left or right wing parties/candidates as they like, and if they don't win, their preferences can flow down to the larger traditional parties. The winning candidate has a majority of voters in their constituency who are at least satisfied with the outcome, even if they aren't thrilled.

[@edberger7712]

@@liamcollins9183 yes, the AV does mitigate a lot of the problems, but tactical voting was still very much a necessity, especially in the inner city Coalition heartland, where most Labor voters voted independent instead.

[@ianf4514]

Sounds like bad news for hard working australians

[@liamcollins9183]

@@edberger7712 true, but people aren't having to second guess each other as much, a Labor voter could still put Labor as their #1, and a Teal Independent as their #2, or vice versa, and when one gets knocked out, their votes flow to the other.

[@pickleson4573]

It's also important to note that the current FPTP system itself influences voting behaviour: smaller parties have suppressed vote shares as people don't see them as feasible "winners". With a proportional system, however, every vote counts and smaller parties can play important roles in forming governments, so it is safe to assume that they will receive even higher vote shares.

[@catmar1944]

["That also did not work in Countries that have that system as they were also imprisoned and lost their right to travel unhindered over the last couple of years;"]all rights reserved.

[@hammer3721]

@@catmar1944 Another shill for FPTP. Most European countries have PR.

[@kfhroe8262]

Nope. most of them aren't. For this reason there are threshold of 1% to 7% in Europe.

[@hammer3721]

@Alexei Smirnoff Because people are ignorant as hell.

[@Libretio]

@Alexei Smirnoff You mean, the *Tories* don't care about electoral reform. Gee, I wonder why... Meanwhile, back in Reality, the referendum in 2011 was about AV, which is no better than FPTP, which failed for that very reason and wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference even if it *had* succeeded. No wonder people rejected it. Labour membership and their union backers have never been more in favour of PR than they are now. And as the video points out, this is the best - and most historically important - time to implement it. If nothing else, to reclaim our democracy - that's REAL democracy, not the fake crap peddled by Far Right shysters - and take back control from those with a vested interest in keeping the populace at heel. The Tories can shove their plans for an Orban-style government where the sun don't shine.

[@belgiumbunlover5787]

Labour election strategists are carefully studying this to find out exactly what they won't be doing at the next election!

[@belgiumbunlover5787]

@@thelightsilent Damn, meth is one hell of a drug!

[@SevenEllen]

Yeah, like drinking at work, watching porn at work, skiving off meetings about a little thing called Covid, etc, etc, etc.

[@blindbrad4719]

So where to go to find out how to vote tactically?

[@TerryVogelaar]

Here in the Netherlands, we have 20+ political parties, and to form a government, they have to cooperate. Yet because of our Dutch directness, we have the name to be rude. Despite its bigger population with arguably more than just a handful of opinions, the UK has considerably fewer political parties to choose from. And only 2 that really stand a chance of ruling. This creates a much stronger 'us versus them' mindset, stressing the need to disagree and obstruct everything 'they' want to do. Yet politeness is a big part of British culture. If we rude Dutchies can cooperate in politics, why do those polite Brits have such a yell-fest whenever they try to legislate anything? I think you should drop that silly 'first past the post' system and allow parties to cooperate in a coalition like true democracies do.

[@86pp73]

Welcome to UK politics. Parliament is so far away from the majority of Brits, not just geographically, but socially too; it's all suits and ties, ever rising wages and fancy lifestyles that are written off as "work expenses". Politicians can spend all their time being overgrown children in the House of Commons, then go and booze it up in the parliamentary bar and consume highly illegal substances once they knock-off for the day. They will never feel the consequences of their actions, unlike everyone else in the country, who has to suffer for their entitlement.

[@alphamikeomega5728]

Based and we-need-another-Glorious-Revolution-pilled

[@TerryVogelaar]

@@86pp73 So sad; I feel for you! Dutch politics, unfortunately, isn't free of entitlement. Apparently, with great power comes great evasion of responsibility. Mark Rutte has quite a few controversies too. You think his accent is bad when he tries to speak English. But that is the least of his crimes. He already had to step down but got reelected anyway. Now there is a new scandal about conveniently deleting documents that should have been archived. I wasn't trying to brag about our excellent politicians; I rather tried to say that the system behind it is a little better than the UK's.

[@rohanindra6401]

Theres also Italy which often relies on Coalition parties thus is unstable and ungovernable. India relied on unstable coalitions for a long time and now has stability with majoritarian Modi. That being said I believe your govt is stable and New Zealand which is well governed and has coalition governments. Question is whether UK can cooperate like Netherlands under a multi party environment or collapse like Italy.

[@TerryVogelaar]

@@rohanindra6401 Excellent point! That, of course, remains to be seen. A coalition isn't without any disadvantages. But I do believe it is a better representation of the people. With only 2 real contenders, many Brits have to vote for the least bad option instead of really electing a party that represents their own opinion. That should be avoided.

[@mentality-monster]

Would require Labour having some balls, so don't get your hopes up.

[@seriousmaran9414]

Some seats cannot be won by Labour but could by the Lib-Dems. Same other way. A simple we will not stand here if you do not there is enough. That would put the Tories under a lot of stress. If they do need a deal supply and demand could be enough.

[@cobbler9113]

@@seriousmaran9414 That’s also assuming most Lib Dem voters would vote for Labour otherwise. There’s no guarantee of that happening even if the members are broadly in favour.

[@seriousmaran9414]

@@cobbler9113 the most vulnerable seats require hundreds to a thousand votes. All it requires is enough to push it over. Many Tories are not happy with the government and for them the next option would be Lib-Dems. Although for many just knowing the best option is often enough.

[@jacobedward2401]

I heard from "A Different Bias" that labour membership is in favour of a liberal alliance, but the unions are against it because they don't want to share power.

[@cinderball1135]

Labour member here: appetite for a pact with Lib Dems has never been higher, nor have I ever before seen such enthusiasm for PR.

[@apkk5594]

PR could significantly help to reduce division in this country. Under such a system, the tories would have to become more moderate to be considered viable. That could be wishful thinking of course but any system that forces more cooperation seems like a positive to me.

[@cobbler9113]

If we have PR, both Labour and the Tories will split into various parties. There’ll still be a fairly hardline right wing element with their own party and there’ll be a left wing Corbynite equivalent from that side too.

[@Hession0Drasha]

It's part of what makes germany/the nordics so stable and sucessfull. The people have the power to make the government invest in human capital consistently and build infrastructure as and before it's needed, rather than the conservative model of doing as little as possible, just to make sure the system doesn't collapse, while the country becomes decades behind on infrastructure and it becomes down to individuals to fund their own self improvement. The conservatives are pro big business/pro monopoly, anti sme, anti decentralised power, anti meritocracy.

[@dm121984]

It's wishful thinking now, but wouldn't have been back in 2012 - the pull to the right wing extremist madness caused by UKIP wouldn't have been a factor under any other voting system; and most voting systems would have had them at least reduced in power over their targeted cuts to the lifelines of poorer households.

[@dambrooks7578]

The only issue with a PR voting system is the party in power are the only ones that can alter the vote count system, however as Sir Saintly Starmer has removed democratic voting from within the Labour party itself, I hold no hope that there would be any change to FPTP. Shamefully, he doesn't like democracy 🙄

[@grimborn9949]

@@Hession0Drasha Yes, the ERG extremists are performing a kind of scientific\social experiment, with the UK as subject.

[@Axman6]

I really hope you have a video planned on the weekend’s Australian Federal election, and particularly how our preferential voting system means people were able to vote how they wanted, and the results clearly show the benefits. A massive defeat for the conservative Liberal party who’s been in power for a decade.

[@oliverdobson3761]

If they do that’ll go on TLDR Global I’d expect

[@errolfeistl1705]

Hahaha, Well you got what you asked for, less than half an hour after you posted this comment they published that exact video.

[@jordanle366]

AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE

[@Axman6]

@@errolfeistl1705 I never knew I had such influence!

[@somethinglikethat2176]

The really interesting thing imo is the fall in first preferences for both the main parties.

[@BrutalOddball]

Or, as recent event have shown us, the tories can just elect Liz Truss

[@vinny9868]

"Why change the rules? You're winning anyway". Is one of the main reason why the US also refuses to change its worse convoluted voting system. The second main reason is because the US refuses to advance past 1776.

[@theuglykwan]

They have changed it before. There was STV in a bunch of cities during the progressive era which reduced the power of the party machines. They kept trying to repeal it and eventually got rid of it with fearmongering and now only 1 is left I think from that era. Some use ranked choice voting in local elections. 2 states use it for federal elections. They could switch to RCV for the US house state by state. For multi-member districts they need federal govt to act. States could switch to PR for state elections too but most that had it in some form moved away from it. FL recently banned RCV (some localities used it). American politicians would probably not want to change to a PR system even if it might help them locally. A 2 party system still gives them more power. A multi party system would diffuse it and restrain their corruption as voters would have choice.

[@homyce]

Very well said!

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

@Vinny If the U.S. refused to advance past 1776, then slavery would still exist.

[@vinny9868]

@@IkeOkerekeNews Yeah. Take a look at what's happening with the prison system, and how we treat immigrants, then tell me that we don't practice slavery, because either you're blind or lying.

[@azerua99]

@@vinny9868 so why are they coming to America, if america enslave them.

[@rhysholdaway]

This is the best argument yet for electoral reform. Tories, Lib Dems, SNP, and Greens should all have a manifesto commitment to implement PR and then just call for fresh elections.

[@julianshepherd2038]

@Ryan Davies what have Scottish Labour got to offer ? 1 MP.

[@corruptedcola393]

@Ryan Davies I very much doubt the English electorate will vote for Labour if they start a coalition with the SNP.

[@danquixote6072]

@@corruptedcola393 Do Labour supporters really care whether Scotland is independent?

[@danquixote6072]

@Ryan Davies Then you must be a Tory. (Nothing wrong with that but they also have many neo-liberal policies)

[@somethinglikethat2176]

Maybe you could keep the House of Commons but with preference voting and turn the House of Lords into a chamber with its members made up of people elected on the PR system. That way people won't lose their local representation and the a body of PR can have its say too.

[@xyungeloest]

For this reason I really like our German system. We have FPTP AND 100% representation by popular vote. We just split the ballot in a section for your local MP and a section for the parties. We only had a absolute majority one time since 1949.

[@cooltwittertag]

Only problem is the ever growing parliament

[@danielwebb8402]

And therefore no one knows what coalition they are voting for. The government is formed a) behind closed doors b) post the humans vote c) ages later. The social Democrats have repeatedly been punished electorally for not implementing all and only their policies as a junior coalition partner. As many cons as pros.

[@xyungeloest]

@@cooltwittertag Now that the conservatives are out of government we will also have a huge reform on the system, scrapping balance and overhang seats

[@joesoy9185]

There are so many issues with the German system. I remember well the 1976 Bundestag election result. With only 40 seats, the FDP held the balance of power in the Schmidt (SPD 224 seats ) Government. With these 40 votes, they had their leader, Genscher, as Foreign Minister, and other important Cabinet posts; Minister of the Interior, Minister of Economics, and Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. In other words, their political power far exceeded the will of the People. Unelected Members of Parliament can be chosen from "The List". 99% of Germans are not able to explain coherently how the Überhangsmandate system works. No "democratic" system is perfect, but I´m so glad we in the UK do not have the havoc-causing likes of the "AfD" and "Die Linke" in the House of Commons.

[@xyungeloest]

@@joesoy9185 Wouldn't the LibDems also have the most power if neither Labor nor the Tories have an outright majority? That's the same situation. And AfD and Die Linke may not be your favorite parties, but they got over 20% in 2017, its only democratic to have them in parliament.

[@liamcollett4537]

Wait! The UK electorate took part in a referendum with regards to making their OWN vote more representative and they voted against it?! Wtf?!

[@serbanandreimarin5988]

A major campaign of manipulation and fearmongering from the two big parties did the trick

[@mattyb7183]

That referendum was a joke. To start, what we voted on wasn't a proportional representation system. It was Alternative Voting. The media (which is virtually all extremely pro-current system) made virtually no effort to explain how the AV system worked and whether it had any merits over the FPTP. AV was relentlessly demonised in the press and I remember having to come to KZbin to find a video explaining how it worked. The politicians weren't much better, with pretty much every Tory and Labour MP coming out against it (unsurprisingly) and the LibDems (who proposed it) ran such a terrible campaign that I did wonder if they where trying to sabotage their own initiative. As a result it was overwhelmingly rejected. And off course it gets used as an excuse to shut down any talk of electoral reform with people saying "we voted once and everyone rejected it, therefore we should never try again".

[@jwil4286]

@@mattyb7183 then that’s LDs’ fault for not campaigning effectively enough. Also, do you have specifics to show that the media manipulated the results (polls showing people didn’t know and would have voted differently if they had)?

[@danwarb1]

>50s vote is controlled by press barons.

[@martinhartecfc]

"Under STV, Corbyn's Labour would've actually beaten May in 2017." That makes me want to cry. I doubt we'll ever have another opportunity for a PM like Corbyn in my lifetime.

[@martinhartecfc]

@@FelixBat McDonnell provided the organisation and the intellectual vision.

[@corruptedcola393]

Corbyn had some questionable policies...

[@kfhroe8262]

Corbyn? The same Corbyn that agreed to the 2019 election because it was taunted by Johnson and lost in a landslide? The same that could have be in a majority coalition with Labour calling most of the shots by simply not being the PM, but chosing himself a Labour PM? I doubt he could ever be in a coalition required for a PR...

[@DogsandPennies]

@@kennethkho7165 that was literally properganda lies against him. There was never any proof and the searches for evidence were dragged out

[@nerrler5574]

@@kennethkho7165 you actually fell for that BS?

[@skskskksks858]

"Looked unbeatable for a while now" when referring to the Tories shouldn't be presented as fact. They didn't look unbeatable in 2017, despite a snap election and hostile media. Love or hate the Labour leadership, they really did something that election that connected - to not only ignore Labour's success in this form, but to actively persecute the people that lead that charge from then current Labour leadership, comes from both a fear of real systemic change and condecending arrogance that the people who turned out then, have forgotten that why they did so. They wanted change.

[@FrogmortonHotchkiss]

Well said. Victory under Starmer will be meaningless.

[@ellenbainprior4682]

Absolutely right. The Labour Party in its present form will never get into power, no matter how badly the Conservatives perform, because they offer no real alternative. They are just red Tories.

[@pradeepmagan6951]

The UK needs to change to an MMP voting system which is a fairer than any other

[@liamcollins9183]

Coming from NZ, where we've had MMP sinc 1996, its absolutely much better than FPTP. But the drawback of it is that you have a bunch of list MPs who aren't bound to any area of the country, and often who's ranking is subject to party leadership, giving them more power over the makeup of their parties (leaders can can also use the list to insulate themselves from losing their seats, even if their voters have come to dislike them. Personally I would go for STV, it maintains a decent level of proportionality, but still keeps MPs bound to their constituents. But its a bit harder to get political support for, because of its more complex nature, its easier for the large parties to scaremonger over it (the Tories managed to do that with the referendum on AV, imagine how easy it'd be for STV)

[@davescott7680]

If only labour weren't short sighted when the LibDems were trying to pass the alternative voting systems. The media shat on that idea with support of labour. It's enraging. Labour should align with Libdem and fuck putting it to a vote, just enact a Australian style system.

[@dm121984]

@@liamcollins9183 I disagree with the 'keeps mps bound' bit - we currently have them bound but they do not give a shit about their constituents if they are in a safe seat. I think PR simply formalises the position political parties in the UK defacto already occupy. Add to that it completely removes the possibility of gerrymandering. But I'd be willing to go with MMP. Hell, I'd still be willing to go with STV over FPTP - anything is better than the toxic affects of FPTP.

[@liamcollins9183]

@@dm121984 true but the thing with STV seats, is that they're harder to gerrymander, if they all have 4 or 5 MPs each, which makes them bigger and cover a wider range of people. It also means that you'll often have a number of candidates of the same party running in the same seat, as more than one may be elected. In Australian Senate elections voters can choose to either rank their preferred parties ("above the line") or candidates ("below the line"). If they choose below, and they prefer a party, but dislike a particular candidate of that party, they could choose all the others except them, and rank them last, or even below other party candidates. In Ireland, which also uses STV, senior MPs have been known to lose their seats in the manner.

[@Duck-wc9de]

@@liamcollins9183 that's true. In portugal, we have proportional representation, but we want to get rid of it for a more German system. Proportional representation makes elections a popularity contest for party leaders and the deputies become what we call "chairs with springs". This is, the deputies allways vote as their leader tells them to vote, so, parliament votes look like the chairs have springs, with the deputies of each party allways raising together. If you don't vote as your leader wants, you will go to a list in the povince where you won't be elected, instead of Lisbon constituency. The German elastic parliament is the better option. Proportional representation actually doesn't solve the issues of first past the post. For Instance, the portuguese socialist party won an absolute majority (+51% of the deputies) with 40% of the votes. And accounting to the fact that 50% of the portuguese electorate doesn't bother to vote, this means that you only kneed to convince 20% of the electorate to vote for you, and you have an absolute majority, wich is complete and almost unchecked power.

[@usvalve]

When we have a fair voting system, we can start looking for truth, ethics and wisdom from our politicians. That should take a while.

[@liamr194]

If we had what people argue is a "fairer" voting system we'd be in permanent stasis and paralysis with universal under -funding, a failure of devolution and a lacklustre economy. Precisely the same as all the other purportedly massively democratic nations that have been hindered by inoperable pure representation.

[@liamr194]

@Slightlylesswrong Holland's economy doesn't even compare and their military is a basket case hampered by indecision and obstacles within politics. Germany, meanwhile, have a basket case military hampered by stagnation and indecision and have enslaved their economy to an unsustainable reliance on Russian energy and a demographic crisis in the near future because they failed to fix any institutional problems. Housing, military, social security, Germany has an inherent and material advantage over most of Europe and it's about to lose it all because they failed to fix any single issue. They spunked £3trillion on a variety of renewables, pandering to the greens, that has increased domestic energy production by 0.3% and now all needs to be deconstructed. Puritan democracy is for ideologues not effective governments, that's the unfortunate reality of pure representation. I don't WANT it to be the case but it is; in the same way authoritarian governments can't sustain themselves either for opposing reasons

[@bopsyhp5857]

I like the face cam in this style of video, theres honestly not much the graphics could do besides show the numbers and a couple maps. But the way theyre working together is fun. I like this

[@iminni3459]

"beergate" This naming system is getting out of hand!

[@ohgosh5892]

There was a corruption case in Leeds, on Kirkgate; it's referred to as Kirkgategate.

[@itsrickyschannel.]

@@ohgosh5892I'm reading this a balling, was that even true? XD What happens if there is a 'gate to the 'gate? Kirkgategategate? XD

[@ccsk6548]

TLDR news always brightens my day

[@Masaru_kun]

Thank you for bringing up electoral reform! The single most important issue, since more democracy means people's views are represented on all other issues!!

[@arjun63]

Wow a lot of hard work & research & serious thinking here - well done man - your very intelligent

[@JJFHNREHJEDK]

"These were the least favourable conditions for conservatives" Liz Truss: Hold my cheeze

[@Brieflynormal]

The fact that people would still vote Tory after all this, makes me think that the U.K. deserves to be in the position it’s in

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Yeah, there is something severely wrong within the population. Bunch of masochists lol. Much like the americans.

[@foryou6888]

Is there a viable alternative?

[@foryou6888]

@@IHaveAHobby 😂

[@benghiskahn3673]

@@IHaveAHobby So you voted Conservative because you were Happy with the damage they'd done to the country in the previous 10 years and wanted more?

[@richardhussey7641]

@@benghiskahn3673 It is a matter of opinion that they damaged the country! Some voters would say Labour did!

[@Hendricus56]

I mean, the main advantage of having a locally elected MP and also a parliament that fits the overall results could be easily done. By adding a 2nd vote like we in Germany have. We have a locally elected MP from our first vote and a 2nd vote, where the overall result is decided, making it possible to vote for someone you like, but also allows you to support the party you like, even if they aren't the same

[@A.Martin]

this

[@HyperScorpio8688]

The German system is also immensely bureaucratic and complex, to the point where there is half a dozen voting maps and none make sense in context of who actually won...

[@Hendricus56]

@@HyperScorpio8688 I didn't say copy it 1:1, just simply add a 2nd vote for a better overall representation. And which maps? When I look at maps after an election, it is pretty clear who won. And bureaucratic and complex? Getting permission to build something takes a lot of time. The final results are basically there the next morning with the overall trend being known basically since 18:00, if not 1-2h later

[@A.Martin]

@@HyperScorpio8688 it doesn't have to be complex. The germans must just like it that way :p

[@itsalongday]

@@HyperScorpio8688 Yeah sure, the maps will be complicated, that's why it's gonna be a bad idea /s

[@mediacedia3719]

Okay you finally convinced me to sign up to curiosity stream

[@llamudos9809]

LOL at the polling stats.

[@ahmd-mi9964]

Sorry but this is for the birds, Kier Starmer is more despised than Tories, This reminds me of Brexit expectations and suprise when that happened.

[@TheTrackRecord]

I’ve been advocating for something like this a lot in my content. I strongly believe that electoral reform is the only hope for the UK’s politics. I just hope that the left can be pragmatic enough to pull it off and that the Lib Dems will make equal votes an absolute red line in any coalition.

[@theuglykwan]

Spoiler - Labour probably aren't there yet. They need to win a cycle, drag their feet on PR and eventually get another spell of over a decade or more out of power for them to come around. They'd rather lose as the 2nd largest party than win as a coalition more often.

[@Loci666]

What lmao and have a system like America 🤔🤔

[@TheKazragore]

@@Loci666 Uhhh no. That would be moving _away_ from a system like America. America uses FPTP voting as well.

[@Donnerbalken28]

Eh. Germanies system has its own problems, especially that the coalitions that form are either made up from the two largest parties anyway (as has happened under Merkel three times), rendering opposition bascially useless since they could never hope to match the sheer resources and institutional powers the CDU and SPD have on their disposal or are build on a very shaky basis. The current coalition in the federal level is SPD (Social Democrats)-Greens-FDP (Liberals). All three parties have fundamentally diffrent apporaches various topics. The Greens are socially very progressive, while FDP and SPD tend to be more conservative. FDP is very business-friendly and market-oriented, while SPD and the Greens prefer more interventionist policies. SPD wants to open up social mobility for lower class citizens, while the Greens and FDP strongly oppose that. A lot of Germans also express frustration at the problem that, because our system necessitates coalition building in nearly every case (the last time one party has ruled alone on the federal level was in 1957) you automatically might elect a party into office that you fundamentally disagree with. It turns your vote for a party program or personality into a mystery box where you won't know what you will get. Saying that we have more choice because we have a proportional system is somewhat dishonest if nearly every election ends with the two large parties of the center entering a coalition. A situation that might look appealing to the Tories and Labour too, once they realize their political system is no longer a binary. And as the balkanization of our political space continues, the system becomes even more unstable with new parties from the fringes joining the fray. Die Linke and AfD, both far-left and far-right respectively, regularly have gained combined about 20% of the total votes in the last 2 elections despite running on purely oppositional platforms with no options to enter a coalition. That opens the doors to shameless grifting, and lots of it. Addionally, as members of Parliament, you can gain access to state secrets and have to be represented in comittees and everything. Finally you get a lot of resources for your party through the Bundestag. FPTP has the major benefit that the dynamics of that system, which promotes two-party systems heavily incentivizes, that the parties meaningfully differ from each other in fundamental ways. Policy becomes more important in debates too. The fringes are by the nature of this naturally politically irrelevant since they could never hope to amass the memebership base and instituional power the two large parties generate for themselves. And lastly, it is very easy to form a government. Coalition building can drag on for a long time here. Really, you don't have it so bad.

[@pax6833]

"Don't do it...Don't give me that hope..."

[@bombshellmusical9566]

I don't think the Tories would be doomed, but I do think they'd need to move closer to the centre to get more votes, and to be a viable coalition partner.

[@ohgosh5892]

If the tories move closer to the 'centre', then they lose the very ukipper/ reform bigoted racist vote which is the *only* support they actually have. This is why they are doomed.

[@richardhussey7641]

Of course they would not be doomed. Even if they did not get enough votes too form the government, the fact that 30 plus per cent of people still vote for them , would mean they would still win about 200 seats or so in the House of Commons.

[@ZeroToPatrick]

FACTUAL ERROR: At 9:13 the graphic puts a box around the general election results from 70, 74 and 74 and incorrectly describes them as Margaret Thatcher's margins. She was first elected Prime Minister in 1979 and served until 1990. Might want to change that. Cheers!

[@OliverJGibson]

They also claimed that the Brexit Party stood aside for the Conservatives in 2017, while the party was actually formed in 2019.

[@Burty117]

I don't like labour as much as the next voting age person, but it'd be just a down right crime to vote for Tories at this point.

[@jamescrozier6424]

exaclty, but realistically you cant vote for minor parties because they are unlikely to get in. we need reformation

[@pureplay7071]

I agree I'm not a big fan but I will vote for them just to get this sham out.

[@Burty117]

@@jamescrozier6424 Completely agree, I know a lot of people who are going to vote Labour next, lets hope they really do go through with electoral reform. It's sorely needed.

[@foryou6888]

@@pureplay7071 The medicine may be worse then the poison

[@pauli2169]

Nah, let the Tories win again, cannot wait to see the UK go down the shithole where it belongs.

[@s.williams3214]

This would be incredible

[@ajm35lp52]

3:30 - The Brexit Party and Reform UK did not exist in 2017. This is really simple stuff, you're just exaggerating for effect as per.

[@bitplayer7092]

The modelling seems dubious, since the parties would totally change how they operate. Relying on candidates not even running, and them relying on them as coalition partners seems a bold move.

[@beanoboy62]

Modern problems require modern solutions.

[@Libretio]

They'd do it once, at the next GE, to get rid of the Tories and affect much-needed change, such as described in the video. Then they'd never have to do it again. Ever. And no one needs to stand down candidates. You can still field them (I believe Labour has a rule saying they *have* to stand candidates), but they'll keep a low profile to allow the more likely party a running chance at taking seats from the Tories. All perfectly legal. Farage did the same for the Tories at the last GE. If he hadn't, the Tories would likely have lost...

[@ohgosh5892]

That's why it will work.

[@Tamachan87]

Whilst I understand the argument that if Labour get in with FPTP why would they want to change it, I really do hope that Starmer is smart enough to know that FPTP was what got us stuck with the bloody Tories for over a decade. So much of Britains power, wealth, and status in the world has been undone catastrophically in such a short time by so few people. And for as long as FPTP is in place, it can happen again, and I'm not sure how much lower we can sink with these Eton fucks in charge.

[@MarkusAldawn]

Reminds me of something I once read. "An amateur strategist might try to maximise the margin of victory. A cunning strategist, however, will maximise the _likelihood_ of victory." If we replace FPTP with STV or Party List or some other stystem, it decreases the chances Labour will get 100% of what they want. But right now they're getting 0%, and under a coalition Government, even in the worst case where they represent half of the Government seats, maybe 200 while their coalition partners hold another 200, they're still probably going to get well over 50% of what they want (most goals aren't mutually exclusive, some are compatible, some work better together), probably closer to 70% of what they'd get with a Labour majority. I think it's not so much the party that drives this so much as the politicians. If Starmer intends to be kicking around in twenty years' time, it makes sense to maximise the amount of time Labour is in Government for, even if it's as the leader of coalitions. If he's not really expecting to see more than five years' time as leader or indeed as a frontbencher, he'll probably want to get his stamp on history made, by passing a bunch of legislation *he* was the catalyst for. Granted, changing the electoral model is a massive legislative accomplishment, so this shortsightedness might work in favour of this.

[@covfefe1787]

@@MarkusAldawn Nigel Farge will end up as PM if this happens. Reform UK would lead UKIP and Conservative on a collation and win.

[@historiamilitaris5161]

Well you want people without any school in charge? Only because it would be "inclusive" that is madness. UK does not need radicals. It never did.

[@seamuspadraigsanders431]

14 per cent of the Labour Party were privately educated, one even going to your despised Eton.

[@historiamilitaris5161]

@@seamuspadraigsanders431 yes those are normal and reasonable

[@MrSmeagolsGhost]

Don’t do that, don’t give me hope

[@Cajek2]

We have first past the post here too in America and this is why you can’t have more than two parties

[@christinavuyk7875]

Never mind all that, Blo-Jo is doing a fantastic job for Labour all by himself 😂

[@davidpeterson5647]

Sadly though, the damage has been done. The UK ain't recovering from this. Agitation from Scotland and No to be independent will only grow because of the Tories fucking around to find out, while Labour couldn't figure out a method for seeming much more sensible.

[@Bungle-UK]

But he isn’t really, Labour should be miles ahead in the polls but they aren’t. People are turned off by the Tories but aren’t attracted by Labour.

[@chaselee86]

UK needs to reform the election methods. Proportional representations would be a better solution to be more inclusive for small parties and a wider variety of opinions.

[@jibcot8541]

This would be amazing.

[@kareemellebany3559]

I like the ad progress bar, makes me much less likely to skip it.

[@eckyboy1888]

Why does SNP get called as a small party it would have over 50 seats in parliament at the next election while the Lib Dems would only have 12

[@julianshepherd2038]

Because you live in the English Empire

[@Daniboi971]

Because FPTP. One constituency in Scotland who voted for SNP could have about 10% of the total population of a constituency who voted in Tory, but they're worth the same under this system. Only 1.2m voted for them in last GE. 3.9% of the total share. 3.9.

[@jonathancardy9941]

In an electoral pact you don't sign up to all of each others policies. Depending on the deal, you might not be signing up to any of them. In a coalition you likely have to sign up to some of them - but as per the Conservative Lib Dem coalition, the larger party would not expect to concede more policies than the smaller one.

[@drewamstutz]

Okay okay okay. After months of debating, I finally joined. You got me :)

[@michaelflinn7784]

This would be great

[@rcm926]

9:13 that's not Thatcher you highlighted, Thatcher was PM in the 80s, not the 70s.

[@lukehb]

Problem here is, I’m a registered Lib Dem voter, but I’m not left leaning. I’m decidedly centrist - that’s why I joined a centre party - and actually probably lean right on nearly as many issues as I lean left on. If the Lib Dems stepped aside, I’m not sure it’s anywhere near automatic that centrist voters like myself would automatically switch their allegiance to a left wing socialist leaning Labour Party. And while I think I could certainly get behind someone on the soft left like Kier Starmer (I actually think he personally is closer to the centre than several recent lib dem leaders, including Jo Swinson, who ultimately caused me to be unable to vote lib dem in the last election I was physically present in the UK for). Still, I would still need to see a lot of tempering of the labour rhetoric before I’d be comfortable voting for the party.

[@danielwebb8402]

The left do assume "Anyone not voting Conservative must agree with me". Wrongly.

[@Bungle-UK]

Interesting point. It rather begs the question of why there are so many parties on the left if they will just all happily come together as one. If they don’t have different politics, why do they all exist and, if they do have different beliefs, how can they work together? I can see a significant amount of infighting, especially among the hard-left elements who will struggle to compromise on their core beliefs.

[@joebarlow5747]

People forget the election is 2 years away

[@riderramblings]

I think most people want the country run properly. Unfortunately, *none* of the parties seem capable of doing that. Sad though it may seem, the country's finances seem to fair better under the Tories and Labour don't seem to be able to make their social policies work properly. My take on the last 50 years...

[@MoonatikYT]

9:28 This framing isn't terribly honest. When you take turnout into consideration, no party in recent history has been able to mobilise 40% of the population, or even 40% of registered voters. The truth is that "none of the above" is the most popular party in the country by millions.

[@gregoryfenn1462]

True but none of the above doesn't make any difference to the winner or loser of an election

[@MoonatikYT]

@@gregoryfenn1462 not my point, the framing is still dishonest

[@samuelking6416]

My advice is to review the recent Australian election. Both the two major parties Labor and Liberals (Tories) lost primary votes due to a massive surge in votes for 3rd parties. It was these third parties that stole the seats from the Libs (Tories).

[@goodlookingcorpse]

It was dedicated of you to record this despite falling down a well.

[@aperson22222]

Would be nice!

[@Ellipsis115]

Youve got to look at the stats most people are not getting who they prefer even out of the top 2 candidates in first past the post. Give us ranked choice!

[@KathyClysm]

I think it would be very helpful if you produced a video on the single transferable voting system that viewers can share around so people actually know how it would work in detail. I feel a lot of people shy away from voting reform because they think it will be even worse for them etc.

[@fedelede2]

9:15 - you selected 1970-1979 as the Thatcher years. She ruled from 1979 to 1990.

[@ShenpaiWasTaken]

That would be awesome

[@loumachugh9641]

the snp would never go into a coalition with starmers labour though. this whole video assumes that snp would be willing - they have said on countless occasions that it would never be a possibility . it goes against what they stand for. and they arent super popular in scotland rn as it is

[@veggiesupreme3556]

How come the SNP aren’t super popular in Scotland right now or did you mean labour aren’t super popular

[@chrisahearn789]

This should get more likes. Also there no incentive for the lib Dems short of adding more padding to the coalition, meaning that they'd probably get screwed over like they did under Cameron's first term

[@loumachugh9641]

@@veggiesupreme3556 people dont like how the snp handled covid, and there's a lot of debates about trans rights in Scotland rn (but neither side like how the snp are handling it). also just good old fashioned misogyny, given the leader is a woman

[@veggiesupreme3556]

@@loumachugh9641 Very few countries in the world liked how their governments handled covid. Did the Scots find the SNP a bit too strict ? In a way I was kind of glad to have the tories during the lockdowns. The traditional Tory reluctance of invading the freedom of the individual held them back I believe. Under labour I imagine the rules would have been significantly stricter and much more enforced

[@loumachugh9641]

@@veggiesupreme3556 its more that they were indecisive & not transparent about why they made certain decisions, or what the process for lockdown was. there was no regular review periods, the government just changed the rules out of the blue, which was really bad for businesses, and peoples lives/mental health. it made people feel like the government didn't trust us and were treating us like children

[@timperry6948]

Let's be fair and give credit where credit is due. If the Tories are blocked out for decades, it will be the fault of the Tories and them alone. A continuous stream of own goals by consecutive Tory governments is what will lead them to political purgatory. Labour will simply be the passive benefactor of the Tory's self inflicted wound.

[@AnonEyeMouse]

The problem is that the tories have taken over every major party in the UK. Labour and the Liberal Democrats now have entirely tory leadership with converted efforts in both parties to eradicate any trace of socialist or Liberal tendencies. There simply isn't a party to vote for that ISNT tory that has has a hope of bringing electoral reform to the people.

[@joshuahawkenson9114]

Watching this video now and laughing at the current situation

[@LysanderLH]

That would be an equally catastrophic outcome.

[@pritapp788]

The solution envisaged here requires consensus and goodwill between various non-Tory parties, and acceptance from a British electorate that might well find anything other than simplistic FPTP too complicated for its taste... Not saying it's impossible but it sounds so extremely unlikely based on the UK's history and political culture.

[@dimsan5]

I struggle to see Starmer to advocate for any sort of change. you can barely get an actual policy out of him he just vaguely gestures to respectability politics, to see him shift to a massive change to our electoral system is incredibly hard to see. he's done his job clear out the left out of power from the labour party

[@veggiesupreme3556]

I thought the same at first but I think he’s just sitting back and letting the tories destroy themselves. The parties only really release manifestos when the election is coming up I believe

[@historiamilitaris5161]

Ditching the radicals is always right and good.

[@sfredd9800]

You should include Orkney and Shetland in your maps

[@mbeechey]

Oh my word, please change your audio settings. How are you managing to get such an echo using an SM7B?!

[@stevoc9930]

''Keep the Tories out for a long time to come'' Not going to lie I got a semi when I heard that.

[@Loci666]

Weirdo

[@stevoc9930]

@@Loci666 😂😘

[@kquat7899]

I can't believe Labour have been so slow to realise that pacts are their only hope, which is a good thing (pacts).

[@richardhussey7641]

Because if they did, they would be admitting they are not going too win by themselves, and therefore are not really a national party!

[@kquat7899]

@@richardhussey7641 They are supposed to be working for the greater good, not their egos.

[@jontalbot1]

You make the mistake of thinking of the Labour Party as one thing with a single mind. Like all parties, especially in two party systems, it is a coalition of views and interests. Those most opposed to pacts and PR are the left of the party. This partly for ideological reasons ( the right of Labour is little different, if at all from the Lib Dems) but also because the Labour Party is the only possible means for people like Corbyn to ever win power or even have any influence. If they stood on a platform they believe in, they would be wiped out.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

The slightly better Stop Light Coalition.

[@phild8192]

This would be almost the perfect situation for me..

[@jamesbeesley2767]

Although I expect the next non-Tory government will get rid of FTPT, this will not keep the Tories out of office for decades. Whilst most people do vote for centrist/left wing parties, most people also vote for centrist/right wing parties

[@olivercuenca4109]

So they would probably get back into power, but most likely as part of a moderate coalition with the right half of Labour?

[@jamesbeesley2767]

@@olivercuenca4109 nothing is impossible, but more likely with the Liberal Democrats, and/or others

[@monotonomos5847]

In reality, the number of MPs required to form a majority is lower than the nominal number of 326 as the speaker and abstentionist Sinn Fein MPs don’t cast votes; although that means it’s entirely possible that Labour can govern alone with 322 seats, it’s a very slim margin which could be eroded by by-elections and defections

[@TimmyBoja]

What happened to the sound guy? You normlly do it so well!

[@evilmiera]

Well, things sure have changed since this video

[@ParcelOfRogue]

Real PR voting or STV now! It could lock the Tories out for many years, or they would have too become more moderate and acceptable as Cameron attempted and eventually failed at. Even that would be a bonus.

[@jim-es8qk]

Out of all the parties Labour have benifited the most from the FPTP voting system. Historically their constituencies had a smaller number of voters and they needed a far lower percentage of the vote to gain a majority. In 2005 labour only had 35% of the vote (compared to 32% Tory) and they had a huge majority. The conservatives won the popular vote in England but Labour returned 91 more MPs. Maybe concentrate on policy and winning back voters, instead of trying to change the system. People just don't associate well with your politics.

[@Daniboi971]

But the GE wasn't run just in England. Popular vote for the GE was in favour of Labour. You might as well say - take out Shropshire and Buckinghamshire and Labour won the popular vote in England.

[@jim-es8qk]

@@Daniboi971 I think you're missing my point. Labour voters are demanding change to the voting system when they actually benefit the most. I can also make the same point you made about the current Tory government. The GE isn't just run in England.

[@Daniboi971]

@@jim-es8qk So why did you use the example of just in England then. You did that first, not me.

[@jim-es8qk]

@@Daniboi971 England is part of the uk and where 90% of the votes are. The fptp voting system massively benifited labour, it got control of a nation it didnt receive the most votes in. But you could argue during this period while Scotland got a regional government, devolved powers and the party they voted for. England got neither and a deficite in democracy existed.

[@nonyabisness6306]

Me a german watching this video: Huh a coalition, what a novel Idea. Can't even remember the last time we didn't have coalition.

[@solosunbeam]

I'm totally convinced. But you need to spend as much energy convincing curiosity stream to widen their payment options. They only take credit cards. No debit cards, no PayPal, no Google pay, 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@ionnanskilliorus6877]

Keep saying that getting into an electoral pact with the SNP means that you'd be for breaking up the Union but it could be the argued it's the exact opposite. The main grievance for the Scots is that Westminster is too controlling and mostly English issues are considered over all other parts of the UK. With PR there's a far more likely chance of Scottish (non con or Labour) MPs to be in government and have real input in the decisions being made. Therefore making it more attractive to stay in the Union than ever before. PR could be pushed as a way to save the UK from breaking up and rid it from Tory sleaze forever.

[@beanoboy62]

While I admire your optimism I think slease sticks to any politician. Stv would probably make another Scottish independence vote inevitable. But if Scottish independence is what is required for a more representative England and Wales then I'm all for it.

[@ionnanskilliorus6877]

@@beanoboy62 There's sleaze and then there's Tory sleaze. They think because of FPTP and their control of the media (mostly) that they're bullet proof. When there's a good chance you will lose your position, even politicians will reign it in a bit. I've no doubt there will be another vote on Scottish independence but the argument for leaving would defiantly be weaker if there was PR implemented throughout the UK.

[@fisherjam5182]

But echo-y in this one

[@matthewdavid6134]

Knowing labor they’ll find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[@davidcooks2379]

Can you display the numbers on the charts please?

[@Plyspomitox]

Haha, I was confused when you said "the big two parties", because there are the political parties and at the time illegal parties that members of political parties took part in.

[@Steven-fv8xw]

one thing you failed to mention. a labour minority government may simply don’t need lib dems, they need SNP instead. and i think SNP cares more about Indyred2 to electoral reform. electoral reform hurts SNP actually

[@julianshepherd2038]

The snp do well under fptp, stv (councils) and the d'houdt system of a bit of both. All 3 were systems brought in by Unionist governments.

[@Daniboi971]

Labour wouldn't do it if it meant a possibility of the UK breaking up. Would be electoral suicide

[@veggiesupreme3556]

@@FelixBat do you really think they’d win the referendum? Rejoining the EU would be such a long process if at all possible. If brexit was bad for business leaving the UK would be 3x as bad for Scotland’s economy.

[@squallleonhart470]

How much have things changed now.

[@notofthisworld7777]

We don't want labour either. We want every working class householder to decide on every issue

[@catmar1944]

["If we allow any of the big three into office after the last two or three years we need our heads examined - time for change - time for truth and proper government by men and women not corporations pretending to be government;"]i: a man; all rights reserved.

[@v_cpt-phasma_v689]

SNP would never destroy it as it would destroy their power, they benefit more from FPTP than anyone else

[@Wildi42]

The SNP benefit from FPTP more than any other party and yet they would vote to replace it with a PR system. In Scotland we have PR and therefore the SNP would look pretty hypocritical to support FPTP when their whole thing is about how much better and fairer Scottish politics are than British. Additionally, supporting a system which is very much to the advantage of the Conservative Party, the SNP's greatest foe, is also inconsistent.

[@v_cpt-phasma_v689]

@@Wildi42 'when their whole thing is about how much better and fairer Scottish politics are than British.' that's what they claim but that doesn't make it true, in the last election SNP would about 90% of seats but with only just over 50% of Scottish voters, that imbalance far exceeds the imbalance that is seen within Westminster, both political systems need reform but to claim Scotlands is better when the data screams the opposite is ludicrous.

[@Wildi42]

@@v_cpt-phasma_v689 What you've said isn't true. In the last election, the SNP won less than 50% of the seats with about 48% of the vote.

[@justinmeynell6011]

BLA, BLA, BLA... Load of hot air. Get them all out, start again. No one trust the Gov or Media anymore

[@LetsGoGetThem]

Australia adopted a proportional system in 1918 because of the rise of a Third Party that split the vote for the Liberal Party and in response the Liberal Party enacted changes to prevent them losing more seats to Labor. This is evidence that voting third party even in FPTP is not a waste of your vote, it could inadvertently lead to the ruling party feeling the heat of the FPTP and being motivated to make a change.

[@idraote]

Getting rid of those tories would be good. I have nothing against a more conservative party to balance the field, but Tories are a disgrace.

[@Andrew-ob5ij]

I hope, it really is starmers election to lose at this point

[@kellanconaway-smith8992]

could you do a video on sunaks plans for a windfall tax on energy producers?

[@dlrj4886]

Best show ever!!

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

It really is the uk's last chance to avoid falling so far behind that catching up becomes nearly impossible.

[@Jenkowelten]

They better bring electoral reform

[@Axman6]

Australia’s election this weekend shows exactly why it’s so necessary. There was a massive shift away from the two major parties, leading to about a dozen independents gaining seats, who mostly ran on a climate action and anti-corruption policies, both of which will be major parts of the governing Labor party’s action over the next three years.

[@Jenkowelten]

@@Axman6 Exactly, though Labor only lost 2 seats, each to a Green and an Independent

[@torresalex]

9:15 Those elections weren't disputed by Thatcher

[@MRFlackAttack1]

Could you do a video on different electoral systems from around the world.