Seems like all pop science/pop politics?/ anything that wishes to reach to as wide an audience as possible becomes inaccurate as it loses both its nuance and its ethos beyond a certain threshold.

All three seem mildly clickbaity to me lmao. The third one is just no and the first one definitely has the text in lesser focus, so B seems like an obvious choice.

Also btw for some reason this is the 3rd "Johnny harris misreported facts" video I have come across in 24 hours.

BTW, Brendan I appreciate your work on YouTube very much, you JJ Muccolough, Andre Dutra, etc. are some of my favorite political creators.

Also, I find it confusing why parties don't withdraw candidates or endorse other parties in tight seats like these. I mean I expect to see in Britain something like what happened in France this year in the second round, with an informal coalition on a seat by seat basis.

As a non-brit I find this voting system(for some kind of local government?) kinda redundant. I mean the vote totals for both candidates for the party are going to be incredibly close most of the time, so why not use multi-winner ranked choice voting or the like.

Also it the immigration policy a response to overpopulation concerns in the 70s? They were quite influential well until the 90s perhaps and immigration was an easy fix.

This is interesting. Does this party, PEOPLE you say, later evolve into the modern day greens or does it merge with other similar movements. Was this the majority view in the green movement in the 70s or just a fringe one?