in what universe is “worst tory defeat in history” not a landslide, man, what is “sort-of” about that, and what are the conditions which would upgrade from “sort-of” to “landslide”? this kind of deliberate obfuscation isn’t exactly the same thing as lying, but it’s closer to lying than anything else
setting aside *whatever* political bent these are coming from, in what fucking world does “sort-of landslide” explain what is happening for the reader? if you are not writing to be clearly understood, then what in the fuck are you doing?
I would guess it's related to the vote share being under 40% vs the seat share. I think that's still the wrong way to frame it but I'd wager that's the explanation
The issue is that unless the whole piece is about that issue then it's disingenuous. This is how first past the post elections in parliamentary systems always work
Yeah, they're probably seizing on the fact that Labour won a huge majority mainly because the non-Labour vote was so fractured. And perhaps on the fact that voters turnout was the second-lowest in UK history.
The Tories got whooped so bad all the math around how they pick and change their leaders is broken, because it doesn’t scale down to numbers that low
We need a word a whole lot more forceful than “landslide” for shit like that
Because it wasn't a great result for Labour in anything other than number of seats won. It was a "throw the bums out" vote more than a "gee, we love Labour" vote.
They definitely fell down on explaining that, though.
It's a landslide caused by the right fracturing, meaning in a hypothetical different system it wouldn't be a landslide, only in the actual existing system of the UK is it a landslide. 😅
