Before I try to make sense of what happened, let's look at some quirks of the U.K. electoral system as it operated to reward the Blancmange Party and ensure that the next five years for Britain will be a generous helping of "steady as she goes."
These are the results of the election ranked by number of seats won[1]:
| Party | Seats | % of vote | ||||||
| Conservative Party | 330 | 36.8 | ||||||
| Labour Party | 232 | 30.5 | ||||||
| Scottish National Party (SNP) | 56 | 4.7 | ||||||
| Other (vegans, nudists, feminists, jihadis, gypsies, Vikings, pedophiles, global warmists, voodooists, Anglicans) | 23 | 7.5 | ||||||
| Liberal Democrats | 8 | 7.9 | ||||||
| UKIP | 1 | 12.6 |
Listed another way by percentage of votes earned:
| Party | Seats | % of vote | ||||||
| Conservative Party | 330 | 36.8 | ||||||
| Labour Party | 232 | 30.5 | ||||||
| UKIP | 1 | 12.6 | ||||||
| Liberal Democrats | 8 | 7.9 | ||||||
| Other | 23 | 7.5 | ||||||
| Scottish National Party (SNP) | 56 | 4.7 |
So the most recent exercise in democratic politics in the nation that is the Mother of Parliaments gave 56 seats to the SNP (last in terms of total percentage of votes earned) but UKIP (third in terms of total percentage of votes earned) got a heart-stopping one (1) seat. Thus, the SNP got 37.3% of the votes that UKIP earned but got 56 times the number of seats as UKIP. One SNP vote compares to one UKIP vote as 11.9 compares to 0.08, a disparate effect of SNP votes relative to UKIP votes on the order of 149 to 1.
Had seats been allocated on the basis of percentage of the vote, the Conservatives would have won only 239 seats, 87 seats short of a majority. Instead of sitting in the catbird seat today, the Conservatives would be in full desperation mode.
The actual, not "what if" result is, of course, due to the "first past the post" rule of U.K. electoral politics and the ability of minor parties to draw strength away from other minor parties like the proverbial "crabs in a bucket." Similar rules hinder lesser, newer parties seeking access to the ballot in U.S. elections and something can be said for electoral schemes that rewards politicians who are willing to come together under a Big Tent. This dampens enthusiasm for nutcase excess.
Even so, UKIP is hardly a radical party, unless one considers challenging the sacred belief of the ruling parties in the European Union radical. Nigel Farage was an appealing fellow with extraordinary intelligence, insight, courage, and oratorical gifts and he made a point of not associating with Marine Le Pen.
The Conservatives proposed nothing of particular merit that I know of. (I didn't follow the details of the campaigns, let it be known). The only thing "bold" out of them was a commitment to a referendum on the E.U. which was, it seems to me, forced on Cameron who would rather have spent three weeks in a rowboat with Al Sharpton than risk a British withdrawal from the E.U.
The question then is why the abandonment of the excellent Nigel Garage and the ardent rush to the "safe" but flaccid center? Quirks of the electoral system aside, had the U.K. electorate been of a different mind, a vastly different result would have been served up on the current lot.
As I continually complain, European voters simply just will not support nationalist parties, will not be energized on immigration, and will not step back from the madness of the welfare state even as it is in its death throes of fiscal and monetary excess.
Notes
[1] Results Centre, Sky NEWS, 5/8/15.
3 comments:
Your concluding paragraph expresses the state of Brit politics perfectly, Colonel.
Not much else to be said,as we watch the terminal decline of that country.
Thanks. Voting looks increasingly like a futile exercise here in the U.S. The influence of v. wealthy individual political donors appears to set the future in stone well before the campaigns even start. Some Repitilian hopefuls recently met secretly with Adelson in Las Vegas. A wag called it the Adelson primary.
I must be the last man in the U.S. to notice these individual money men. BTAIM, big money has always controlled. Thus, voting to support this or that policy is what is futile.
But...it is a blunt instrument and can be used to announce major changes in attitude. The near total absence of even a hint of discontent in this U.K. election is mystifying. What else can you conclude about it than that Britons are overwhelmingly satisfied with the stays quo? Really?
To me, hundreds of thousands of bleeding foreigners flooding into my country counts as an "invasion" but the people who fought the Battle of Britain appear not to think after my fashion.
WTF, over.
The British have been trained, indoctrinated, to behave as serfs. They are called "subjects" for a reason. To some extent, given how bad conditions are over there (like being arrested for confronting your rapist, or for quoting Churchill on islam), it would seem possible that many on the Right have stopped voting - as have many of us here in America.
Where I lose any understanding of male Brits, at least, is in the acceptance of what happened/is still happening in Rotherham and elsewhere.
I understand that many of the girls raped, abused, and pimped out were parentless wards of the state, with no close relatives to care what was being done to them, but how males in the police departments and on the city councils looked the other way is beyond my comprehension.
How is it that the women who managed the group homes and living facilities for teens looked the other way? And those with a male parent - like the girl arrested for confronting her rapist-abuser on the street - received no help, either.
Am I wrong to think that, should this have started here in America, male family members, friends, or even concerned strangers would have beaten or killed at least _some_ of the muslims involved?
Considering how our last couple of generations have been indoctrinated in our public schools, slipping condoms on bananas and being told that allowing an adult male to touch you is acceptable, perhaps it won't be long before our citizenry are as lost as the Brits.
We have "philosophers" and "bioethicists" like the vile Peter Singer advocating for removing pederasty from the DSM IV, no longer listing it as a disorder, and making it no longer a crime, so perhaps I am just kidding myself about America being better.
But I don't think so. I think enough of us here in this country still follow Judeo-Christian moral codes. And when state and local law enforcement fail us, there will always be the possibility of vigilantes who would "take out the trash".
The commandment, I believe said, "Thou shalt not murder", not "Thou shalt not kill". I am convinced that disposing of muslim trash who rape, abuse, and pimp out our female children would be killing to protect our women and children, and not murder. Defense of our loved ones, our innocent, would make it justifiable.
Post a Comment