A sort of creepy evening Thursday view (May 7, 2015) outside BBC Broadcasting House in London showing David Cameron's mug and the projection of how many seats his Conservatives would win. In actuality, it looks like it was closer to 330, which is just above the 326 needed to form a government.
So the Conservatives won a commanding victory in the allegedly "cliffhanger" British elections yesterday with at least 330 seats in Parliament (enough for a government on their own without a bogus "Coalition") and despite months of "too-close-to-call" polls and -- more importantly -- despite the wholehearted embrace of austerity-laden depression economics.
Screenshot of the UK election results with each Parliament seat constituencies (districts) scaled to population (i.e., a population cartogram) and color-coded to show the winning party. This was taken from the UK Guardian website here. It is really an interactive map.
Paul Krugman has talked about Britain's needless and pointless austerity and the bogus "media-macro" narrative undergirding it at length in blog entries such as this one, this one, and this one , as well as in today's New York Times regular Friday op-ed. There was also this epic piece in the UK Guardian on April 29th, not that it made a difference (these things never do on the "progressive side.") (Note: These pieces were written before the election results were in.)
In the end, it mattered not and Britain embraced its 19th Century Dickensian deflationary past. But it is clear that the Labour Party had gone full wussy like a Washington Post editorial "centrist" Democrat.
The Scottish National Party won most of the seats in Scotland, but given all that happened there, that's not surprising.
Anyway, congratulations, Britain. You managed to emulate the U.S. in so many ways: A totally bogus "political debate" based on completely erroneous terms dominated by the morally most wrong party and facilitated by a worthless media and the exact wrong outcome that only extends suffering for no good purpose except to please the overclass of financial sector banksters, 0.01% ultra-rich oligarchs, and those who (to quote Jonathan Swift) "pervert the general reason of mankind."
A shitty job, well done, UK.
As usual in life, the shit rises to the top.
My only worry is that British elections are often a harbinger of what might happen in the States the following year. The two countries -- or at least England and suburban and "heartland" America -- tend to have a strange synchronicity in these matters. Why that should be is not a topic for here.
As it is, be sure that the media-whore mavens in this country on (in the late, great blogger Bartcop's famous phraseology) Meet the Whore, Face the Whore, and This Whore, and the larger "Washington Consensus" Gang of 500 will be chortling and burbling their pasty-faced glee.
Think Cokie Roberts sneering at you for all eternity.
Never mind the rightwing Conservative Entertainment Complex of Fox News and AM hate radio and its reaction, although I'm sure that Mike Huckabee can get some new "End Times" scams going to fleece the fundie faithful. (I guess that's one area where the U.S. really is different from the UK -- that level of religio-insanity.)
OK, that's all for now. I really need to get to work today. Natan has left for a new adventure in life and I'm kind of depressed that he is gone.
UPDATED 7:22PM 5/8/2015
Screenshot of Huffington Post headlines on the aftermath of the UK elections, 6:49PM EDT May 8, 2015.
The UK election results have triggered already a tsunami of consequences including a likely British referendum on whether to remain in the broken EU (Cameron promised such a referendum if he won) and whether Scotland will attempt another secessionist vote now that the SNP has won so big there. In the wake of the abysmal showing, the Labour Party remains a totally wussified and pussified shell of itself that offers nothing (sound familiar?).
Updated color-coded UK 2015 election results as a histogram with vote totals / changes.
I can't right off find the link for this but it was from one of the main UK newspapers' online sites. It shows that the Conservatives picked up 24 seats to 331 while Labour lost 26 to 232. SNP roared ahead with 50 to 56 while the Liberal Democrats collapsed by 47 to 8.
However, having said that, this article is worth noting on why British pollsters were so wrong in their forecast of a close election. While at least one pollster (Populus) issued a mea culpa, others have made some good observations including this one that is worth quoting (same article link):
"Others, such as Survation and ComRes, defended their work, pointing out they had been right about the surge of the Scottish National Party, the collapse of the Liberal Democrats and a sharp increase in vote share for anti-EU party UKIP.
"Andrew Hawkins, chairman of ComRes, said this fragmentation of the political landscape had presented pollsters with 'extra headaches' by turning the election into a 'patchwork of regional contests' where national trends were less relevant.
"The polls had converged to suggest the Conservatives and Labor were tied or within a point or two of each other on about 32 or 33 percent of the vote share. In fact, the Conservatives won about 37 percent while Labor won about 31 percent."
I just wanted to note that.
Also, I wanted to note this Paul Krugman blog entry in the wake of the election results (link embedded): The Economy and the British Election. It includes the following chart:
Incumbent party's popular vote margin in U.S. presidential elections from 1948 to 2012 versus the adjusted ratio of Quarter 14 to Quarter 15 (Q14/Q15) growth in real disposable income per capita (as a percent).
Q14 and Q15 refer to the period 3-1/2 to 3-3/4 years after an election in the U.S. (i.e., 3 to 6 months before the subsequent presidential election for which the results are shown as a scatterplot). The brown line drawn on here includes the corresponding UK economic performance for the second half of 2014. It doesn't specifically peg the Conservative vote margin victory. Rather, it suggests that the Conservatives were the favorite to win based upon the same 17 presidential election outcomes scatterplot for the U.S. This also suggests a fairly deterministic ability to predict election outcomes in both the U.S. and the UK.
End of Update and Entry.