I've seen some projections giving them either two (2), or none at all.Was just about to mention the, Tories on track to win sixty something seats...
Well the YouGov survey the other day put Labour on 54%, which is surely not realistic if there were to be an election, but consider previous landslides:No seats at a general election? Surely not.
Yeah so they have bad intentions but also bad execution,I dunno. As I understand it, the government announced a so-called mini-budget last week that did nothing to address the real concerns of the majority of people but which gave money that the country can't afford to a small group of the richest people. So it seems that the main strategy of the government going forward appears to be to borrow money and give it to rich people - and as that's really stupid the pound collapsed.
Increasing interest rates can make the pound more attractive (cos if you can borrow euros at 4 percent, change them to pounds and lend them at 5 percent lots of people will) so people are talking about the BofE raising interest rates to save the pound from the Tories' idiocy but problem is, if you're poor and owe money then higher interest rates fuck you from the other direction.
Truss keeps saying her strategy is the right one and she'll stick to it but it obviously isn't. Their apologists in the press are saying the pound has collapsed cos the second they announced the mini-budget the markets started fearing Starmer getting in but that is also ridiculous. It feels like a fight between the Tories and reality.
I've been reading ft and watching industryYeah so they have bad intentions but also bad execution,
Not only did they propose a highly unprogressive redistribution of income, as they always said they would,
they didnt do the planning, so as soon as they announced their plan, investors and speculators rushed in to exploit its weaknesses, ie long term gilt futures, which would have destroyed the value of private pensions very quickly had the bank of England not done some rapid Quantitative Easing/printing a load more money, which will boost inflation, obvs, though I think they are reluctant to call it qe for some reason.
You conceivably could have it so that the Tories got 49% of the vote in every seat, in 350 of them Labour got 51% and in the rest Libs got 51%, that would mean that the Tories won 49% of the vote and got my far the most votes but they would have no seats at all and Labour and LDs would share them all with about 25% each... but that is extremely unlikely. I've seen projections of Tories getting 62 up to 69 seats as things stand now, which would be fucking hilarious in itself.Well the YouGov survey the other day put Labour on 54%, which is surely not realistic if there were to be an election, but consider previous landslides:
* the Tories under Thatcher got nearly twice as many seats as Labour in 1983, almost 400, with only 42% of the vote.
* Labour under Blair got a huge landslide in 1997 with 43%.
* and the Tories wiped the floor with Labour again three years ago, again with 43% of the vote.
So it's not at inconceivable that one party getting well over half the popular vote would mean the virtual extinction of the other main party, when you consider that other party would be getting far less than 46% of the vote, because people will still be voting for the SNP, Lib Dems, etc.
I don't know how it's calculated, but I've seen people claiming the predicted results of one or two Tory seats from Electoral Calculus, which presumably takes into account all the things you've just mentioned.You conceivably could have it so that the Tories got 49% of the vote in every seat, in 350 of them Labour got 51% and in the rest Libs got 51%, that would mean that the Tories won 49% of the vote and got my far the most votes but they would have no seats at all and Labour and LDs would share them all with about 25% each... but that is extremely unlikely. I've seen projections of Tories getting 62 up to 69 seats as things stand now, which would be fucking hilarious in itself.
I just went to Google and got as far as typing 'shortest', and the first suggestion was 'shortest serving prime minister', so clearly lots of people have also been wondering if Thick Lizzy is going to set a new British record.
(George Canning, 119 days in 1827, if you were wondering.
That is actually possible.election isn't for ages i wouldnt get too excited. boris will probably come back and win a landslide and then rule for another 100 years.