Like many Americans I went to The Daily Mail (via The Drudge Report) to find out what happened in the British elections.
More and more Americans are using the DM as the source for news about America. Based on their ability to read the U.S. more or less correctly in many respects, why wouldn’t the same hold true for what they had to say about their own?
Poor UKIP is Trashed
I was disappointed but not tee-totally surprised by UKIP’s poor showing. I don’t pretend to understand another country’s politics, but UKIP seemed to have what would be in America a kind of third-party aura…in the U.S. if energy for a third party ever gets going, it seems to flatten out at less than twenty percent and is a boon for the Democrats. It would appear, at least here, that such rump efforts pick up the Right’s outliers who either stay home or hold their nose and vote “Republican”. But UKIP didn’t even do that well. Sad.
No doubt my feeling regarding UKIP is off the beam, but that’s what it looks like to an outsider. It would be good to have some input from people who were hoping for a better showing for UKIP.
And the surprising strength of the Scottish National Party demonstrates – to Americans – the growing desire for nationalism/regionalism in Anglo countries everywhere. One can’t have that in England, of course, since the powers that be made sure that any British nationalism is darkened and tainted for the foreseeable future.
This is much the same way that crony corruption here keeps searching frantically under the bed for any sign of racism in the Tea Parties…so far, failing miserably but it doesn’t matter since they’re well-funded to keep trying and some of the fecal matter sticks for those who don’t pay attention.
Even though the race is over, evidently Cameron is still in promise mode: He did say somewhere or other that he’s willing to have a referendum on England’s participation in the EU. Given how the British electorate were damnably lied to before regarding this right to decide, I’m skeptical about that promise.
- Tories 331 (up 25)
- Labour 232 (down 24)
- SNP 56 (up 50)
- Lib Dems 8 (down 48),
- Ukip 1 (down 1)
An interesting sidebar look at the numbers turning out for the election:
The most unpredictable election campaign in living memory led to a bumper election turnout with 66.1 per cent of the electorate casting their votes – the highest number in 18 years.
Just 65 per cent voted in 2010, up from 61 per cent in 2005 and only 59 per cent in 2001.
It was the biggest turnout since the Labour landslide of 1997 which saw 71 per cent of the electorate voting to replace John Major with Labour’s Tony Blair.
The prospect of a hung parliament – with the SNP possibly holding the balance of power – appears to have encouraged a late surge in people registering to vote. In total, some 469,047 registered to vote online on the final day for registration.
Voting was particularly high in Scotland with figures suggesting some 71.1 per cent headed to the polls – following last year’s referendum.
In Dunbartonshire East and Renfrewshire East, which were both SNP gains from Labour, turnout topped more than 80 per cent.
In contrast just 46 per cent of people voted in Manchester Central, the lowest in the country where Lucy Powell held for Labour.
As me mither would say, “who’s Lucy Powell when she’s up and dressed?” From what I can gather, Labour is a Socialist melange of left-over bits and pieces of the old Left?? Obviously I’m an outsider guessing here. Any [civil] opinion as to the future of the losers would be welcome.
Another Opinion Sought
I found this image of Cameron’s Lily-White Staff. Since the Baron’s not around to help I can’t post it, but I sure would like y’all’s opinion. There appears to one man of Indian origin but otherwise his people are roughly half-and-half men and women. There’s no way to count the gays, transgenders, or asexuals, but I presume they’re represented in sufficient numbers. Or maybe it’s just not Britian’s bag…yet. But this shows Britain is less under the foot of the gender dictators than is America. You’re fortunate.
The Future of Polling. Is There One?
What may turn out to be telling in the long run is a possible end to polling people ahead of the vote.Yahoo News carried a report on the dismal outcome of electoral predictions:
The Conservative party’s unexpected triumph in Britain’s general election delivers a hefty blow not only to the routed Labour party, but also to the pollsters who predicted a dead heat.
“The pollsters need to go off and interrogate themselves and poll each other to find who has been telling porkies to whom,” concluded Conservative London mayor Boris Johnson. [do you think he can say that in the future? The “porkies” part, I mean. Won’t that be Islamophobic language?-D]
“It’s extraordinary that 11 polls on the eve of the election should get it so wrong.”
For months, the main survey-takers had the two parties neck-and-neck, flatlining at around 35 percent each.
Only one day before the elections, YouGov, ICM and Survation called it a tie and three other polls published by TNS, Opinium and ComRes gave the Conservatives the narrowest of leads.
Panelbase gave the Tories a two-point lead while all the newspapers wrote that a hung parliament was a certainty.
Well, I must admit that on the rare occasions when pollsters find us, I always lie to them. Who’s to say they’re not government employees? And who’s to say they are honest themselves? In today’s scum culture, the best public response is a lie; it’s safer.
So now you know: Saint Dymphna lies.like.a.rug. My namesake saint did too when she ran away. As one of my confessors once said, “always prevaricate when to do otherwise might place you in danger. And never forget that the moral value of truth must always be weighed in tandem with safety”.
There will be lots of slicing and dicing and analyzing in the months to come. We’ll put up whatever comes our way. Meanwhile, I suggest everyone dust off their Anthony Trollope collection and read up as history repeats itself.