Zompist Bboard Again

And indeed, after the final round of voting, Parliament will now be run according to Hoyle.

Farage has announced that the Brexit Party won't run candidates in constituencies currently hold by Conservative MPs.

Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:36 pm Farage has announced that the Brexit Party won't run candidates in constituencies currently hold by Conservative MPs.

Yes, it seems now like his plan is to be the new DUP in a majority right-wing parliament. Win a few seats, rob the Conservatives of a big victory, and hold the balance of power.

I'm still not completely convinced it's going to work out that way though. It's all quite hard to predict right now: the Conservatives could crush Farage anyway and get a massive majority, or they could fail to make progress and there could be a narrow majority for the non-hard Brexit parties. The one outcome it's hard to see a path to is a big Labour majority, especially with the SNP probably consolidating their hold on Scotland.

The Lib Dems are also being particularly annoying. Jo has been claiming that her exclusion from TV debates is due to sexism, not because she has approximately 0% chance of being the next PM. The fact that the previous female PM, Theresa May, was repeatedly invited to TV debates is apparently irrelevant to the claim that the major broadcasters are misogynist. Meanwhile, her colleagues have been claiming the country is on the brink of electing hundreds of Lib Dems on the basis of very dubious extrapolation from limited or flawed data.

Being the third party must be frustrating, but frivolous legal actions and dubious, ridiculously fake statistics don't do much to make them look like a serious party.

Urgh. Why does every party have to be terrible!

Why not allow Jo Swinson on the debates? It's not like Corbyn has much more of a chance than her of becoming PM (Boris Johnson is guaranteed at this point), and she is a serious candidate frivolous lawsuits aside.

I'm thoroughly done with both Labour and Lib Dems by now. I think the SNP are the only party I support.

Doesn't BP contesting the Conservatives in Labour seats just guarantee that those seats stay Labour? I would expect if Farage is trying to form some sort of alliance those would be the seats he concedes to Johnson.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:30 am Doesn't BP contesting the Conservatives in Labour seats just guarantee that those seats stay Labour? I would expect if Farage is trying to form some sort of alliance those would be the seats he concedes to Johnson.

It's another of Farage's Cunning Stunts. Boris has stolen his thunder and he knows it.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:30 am Doesn't BP contesting the Conservatives in Labour seats just guarantee that those seats stay Labour? I would expect if Farage is trying to form some sort of alliance those would be the seats he concedes to Johnson.

Depends on the constituency. There are some constituencies - heavily working class, mostly white, post-industrial, the kind of places that would probably be solid Trump territory now if they'd be in the USA - where people still tend to vote Labour out of tradition, where most people hate the Tories - keep in mind that the British Conservatives tend to openly and proudly present themselves as the kind of upper-class elitists that US Republicans usually prefer to rail against, and also that deindustrialization was to a large extent seen as a personal project of Margaret Thatcher in the UK - but where there's enough support for anti-EU populism that the Brexit Party might have a shot. In fact, in the constituencies that fit this description, the smartest strategy for the Right would probably be that the Tories stay out and only the Brexit Party runs.

Then again, there are other places where your logic is perfectly sound. As alice indicated, Farage is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

mèþru wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 9:45 pm Why not allow Jo Swinson on the debates?

Because if you allow the Lib Dems to debate, then you have to allow the SNP to debate - they're officially the third party, after all, with far more seats than the Lib Dems, and they're the dominant party in Scotland.

And if you allow the SNP to debate, you have to allow the Brexit Party to debate - they're way ahead of the SNP in the polls, after all.

And if you allow the Brexit Party to debate, it's hard not to allow the Greens to debate - after all, they're ahead of the SNP too.

And if you allow the Greens to debate, how do you reject Plaid Cymru? You're letting the Scottish have a say, but not the Welsh? And you're letting every major party in Wales get a say EXCEPT Plaid?

And if you allow Plaid to debate, you've got to allow the DUP to debate - what, Northern Ireland is the only nation that doesn't get representation? Even when you've invited parties that have fewer MPs (or none!) than the DUP?

But of course, if the DUP are debating, you need to have Sinn Fein.


Basically, there's no easy cut-off point at the moment, and the gap between the big two and the rest is logically the best place to cut if you don't want to have a ten-person "debate".

Raphael wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:45 am

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:30 am Doesn't BP contesting the Conservatives in Labour seats just guarantee that those seats stay Labour? I would expect if Farage is trying to form some sort of alliance those would be the seats he concedes to Johnson.

Depends on the constituency. There are some constituencies - heavily working class, mostly white, post-industrial, the kind of places that would probably be solid Trump territory now if they'd be in the USA - where people still tend to vote Labour out of tradition, where most people hate the Tories - keep in mind that the British Conservatives tend to openly and proudly present themselves as the kind of upper-class elitists that US Republicans usually prefer to rail against, and also that deindustrialization was to a large extent seen as a personal project of Margaret Thatcher in the UK - but where there's enough support for anti-EU populism that the Brexit Party might have a shot. In fact, in the constituencies that fit this description, the smartest strategy for the Right would probably be that the Tories stay out and only the Brexit Party runs.

Then again, there are other places where your logic is perfectly sound. As alice indicated, Farage is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Yes, exactly. The Tories actually already have most of the marginal Tory/Labour seats, so this deal safeguards more seats than it risks. I don't think there'll be THAT many seats where Tory voters defect to the BP when they could otherwise win the seat for the Tories - even if they want to, I think the BP voters will vote tactically for the Tories where it looks like the Tories have a chance (except perhaps a few seats with prominent Remainer Tory candidates).

But there are a bunch of seats up north, particularly in the northeast, where there's a bunch of Labour voters who will never vote Tory as a matter of personal honour, but who might well be willing to let the Tories win their seat in exchange for being able to protest-vote for the BP. Although, as Raphael says, it would probably actually make sense tactially for the Tories to take themselves out of the equation and let the BP take those seats. [strategically, however, they won't do this, because they don't want to let Farage legitimise his party with Westminster seats, which might make people start thinking of them as a real option rather than just a protest vote]

The Lib Dems aren't a regional party, and polls show they are going to make huge gains at least in the popular vote, if not constituencies. And do the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru have Prime Minister candidates anyway? That said, does the Brexit Pary have one?

mèþru wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:04 amThat said, does the Brexit Pary have one?

I don't think the BP would even really exist if its supporters weren't ultimately aiming for Farage in No. 10.

I don't know what the Lib Dems are complaining about. The spectacle of Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn arguing over who should be PM might well be enough to motivate some people to vote Lib Dem...

Frislander wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:16 am

mèþru wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:04 amThat said, does the Brexit Pary have one?

I don't think the BP would even really exist if its supporters weren't ultimately aiming for Farage in No. 10.

Yeah, but given that he isn't even running for the House of Commons...

I don't see what would be a problem in a ten-person debate. There should be maximum representation in a democracy. Although it clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny, just domination of the major parties, a diopoly, though not so severe as in America.

MacAnDàil wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:52 am I don't see what would be a problem in a ten-person debate. There should be maximum representation in a democracy. Although it clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny, just domination of the major parties, a diopoly, though not so severe as in America.

I think both potentially have value for different reasons. A wide debate is good for people who have no clue about the basics of what the different parties stand for, which is a surprisingly large percentage of the population. But there are other ways to accomplish that, and there's plenty of other political coverage apart from the head-to-head debate(s).

For those who have at least a vague idea, it is important to get large chunks of relatively uninterrupted coverage of the most likely next prime ministers, since for a lot of people who leads the government is a key criterion in deciding which party to vote for, and for that reason it makes sense to have a debate between plausible candidates for PM only.

Even if you think Jo Swinson would make a great PM, that is not a reason to vote for the Lib Dems in this election since it just isn't going to happen. You vote for the Lib Dems if you fundamentally disagree with the big two and in the hope that in some circumstances they might swing policy in their direction, and in the hope that in some future election a Lib Dem PM might become possible. But I don't see how in this election you can hope for more than a bit of LD influence in a hung or tiny majority parliament + some movement in the right direction for the next election.

I don't support the Lib Dems but they certainly seem higher in the polls lately so the prospect of them being first or second party seems more likely than most times in the past 30 years. This seem to be shifting though like I expected, and like in the last election, so Labour is a steep upward curve the past week or so and the Lib Dems are a major loser in potential votes.

They could always propose many more debates to have both formats. I think the electoral system should also be reformed so as to discourage two parties dominating.

Well, at this election it actually IS possible that Swinson might become PM. Or it was, until the latest Tory-BP deal. It was never likely, but it was a genuine possibility.

The key is that there are a LOT of seats (i.e. the South) that are Tory-Lib Dem. A large vote for the BP, as originally predicted, would not swing those seats to Labour, but to the Lib Dems. Similarly, Labour defections to the BP could also swing some seats (particularly in London) to the Lib Dems, not the Tories.

So, Swinson could never have had a plurality of votes. But if they'd had about 25% of the vote, and the BP had had about 15% of the vote - numbers that did seem viable at one point - Swinson could actually have ended up with a majority of seats, and become Prime Minister.

Underlyingly, this is because FPTP is laughably bad and unfair when dealing with four parties. It's unfair with three, but with four it can be insane. It's prone to wildly disproportionate trigger points - it used to be said that the difference between getting about 22% and getting about 25% was the difference between getting about 50 seats and getting about 250 seats and being the official opposition. When you add a fourth party as a spoiler, you can end up with a third (or even fourth) party catapulted into a plurality or even majority in the Commons.


-----


But yes, that's the problem with not having head-to-head debates. Also, with too many participants you don't get any genuine back-and-forth between the candidates, you just get them reciting answers to the moderator, which neither the moderator nor the other candidates can contest in any detail for lack of time.

One idea might be to stage the debate as an elimination contest: one question is put to each candidate, and the one who gives the least convincing answer - as judged by an audience vote - has to drop out. Then it continues with a different question, and so on until only one is left, who is quite clearly the winner.

Which - given that different parties are more or less popular on different issues and the moderators know this - would mean that the moderator would in effect choose their favourite parties to debate, and would make sure the parties they didn't like were instantly eliminated.

Seriously, Sal? How could you possibly imagine that the moderator would act with anything other than complete impartiality?

But seriously, or as seriously as this suggestion deserves, choose the questions at random.