UK General Election

Quote: TheCesspit

Exit Polls are in, and looking to be unexpected gains by the Conservatives.

Exit poll:
Conservatives: 316
Labour: 239
SNP: 58
Lib Dems: 10
Ukip: 2

A Con-Lib alliance would give them the scantest majority, as would an alliance with the Unionist Irish parties. Based on those numbers, at least... they gotta go count the result now.

58 seats by the SNP would represent every seat in Scotland bar one voting for the Scottish separatist party, which is interesting as only a small handful of seats voted for independence a few months ago.

Earlier Israel, today the UK, in 2016 the USA!

Quote: AZDuffman

Earlier Israel, today the UK, in 2016 the USA!

Looks that way... Canada also goes to the polls later on in the year. I am hoping we don't get another 4 more years of Harper's brand of conservatism. In the UK, Cameron's brand isn't quite as objectionable... though I believe his austerity measures are misguided and often targetted the wrong things.

Quote: TheCesspit

Looks that way... Canada also goes to the polls later on in the year. I am hoping we don't get another 4 more years of Harper's brand of conservatism. In the UK, Cameron's brand isn't quite as objectionable... though I believe his austerity measures are misguided and often targetted the wrong things.

Austerity has to happen worldwide. We cannot keep on the path we are going. Greece is the canary.

Quote: AZDuffman

Austerity has to happen worldwide. We cannot keep on the path we are going. Greece is the canary.

The British economy has shrunk relative to the US since it took on it's austerity measures.

I agree that reduce government spending is a good trend. However, if you cut spending, but find you debt ratios are increasing, you are doing it wrong. If more people are relying on food banks than before, you are doing it wrong. If wealth disparity has increased massively, you are doing it wrong.

But, the UK electorate doesn't agree with me :)

The final scores proved the exit polls wrong... in a direction that surprised many:

Conservative - 330 (enough for a small majority)
Labour - 232
Scottish National - 56
Liberal Democrat - 8
DUP - 8
Sinn Fein - 4
Plaid Cymru - 3
Ulster Unionists - 2
UK Independence - 1
Greens - 1

Massive losers were the Liberal Democrats, losing 48 seats, and big winners were the SNP, taking 50 seats, and almost all of the Scottish seats.

The leaders if UKIP, The Liberals and Labour have all resigned. UKIP had a large gain in popular share of the vote, which many thought would cannibalize some of the Tories vote. 12.6% of the electorate went for the UK.

This means that there will be strong negotiations about the Eurozone, with a referendum in 2017. The Scottish question will be raised again. The Lib Dems might as well pack up and go home, and Labour will probably shift back towards the centre.

Interesting, in contrast to the US press and media which I'm told is left biased, the analysis suggests that the print media was heavily right biased. This is based on some analysis on the number of positive and negative headlines on the leaders of Labour and Conservative (personality stories, rather than policy based). Milliband, leader of the Labour party, was never that convincing as a leader, while Cameron is. Despite his back drop of upperclass, private schoolboy toadies.

Quote: TheCesspit

The British economy has shrunk relative to the US since it took on it's austerity measures.

I agree that reduce government spending is a good trend. However, if you cut spending, but find you debt ratios are increasing, you are doing it wrong. If more people are relying on food banks than before, you are doing it wrong. If wealth disparity has increased massively, you are doing it wrong.

"Wealth Disparity" has nothing to with "doing it right." Equality of outcome is not a good government objective. Part of "what they are doing wrong" is trying to do to much. Too easy to be "on the dole" as the Brits call it. Work needs to be encouraged, and probably via the stick more than the carrot. Meanwhile, get the government out of the way of those who want to employ people.

Quote:

Interesting, in contrast to the US press and media which I'm told is left biased, the analysis suggests that the print media was heavily right biased. This is based on some analysis on the number of positive and negative headlines on the leaders of Labour and Conservative (personality stories, rather than policy based). Milliband, leader of the Labour party, was never that convincing as a leader, while Cameron is. Despite his back drop of upperclass, private schoolboy toadies.

British media is different in that they do not hide bias as much. Most American media is biased left, but in America the press is "supposed" to be unbiased. So the uninformed think it is so because well the press says it is so. The Brits, OTOH, are a touch more open about it all. A newspaper can be right biased but still be accepted as any other papers.

The good news to me is the world seems to be finally shifting to the right again.

Quote: AZDuffman

"Wealth Disparity" has nothing to with "doing it right." Equality of outcome is not a good government objective. Part of "what they are doing wrong" is trying to do to much. Too easy to be "on the dole" as the Brits call it. Work needs to be encouraged, and probably via the stick more than the carrot. Meanwhile, get the government out of the way of those who want to employ people.

I disagree, as the cuts have reduced equality of opportunity, and not been 'we are all in this together'. I remain unconvinced that trickle down economics works to raise all boats. But we've had this discussion before, and we aren't going to get anywhere with having it again.

Quote:

British media is different in that they do not hide bias as much. Most American media is biased left, but in America the press is "supposed" to be unbiased. So the uninformed think it is so because well the press says it is so. The Brits, OTOH, are a touch more open about it all. A newspaper can be right biased but still be accepted as any other papers.

Yes, the Times is a right-leaning paper, has been forever, and is seen as a paper of record in the UK. The Independent used to be a the neutral paper, and did it quite well, then became more outspoken for the centrist Liberal Democrats, but has shifted right as well. The Daily Mail (blerg) and Telegraph have always been small 'c' conservative. The Guardian this time around was the only real voice on the left. The Sun is a populist paper, and this time went to Conservative support... which is pretty much their natural position, always claiming to be the voice of the (hard-)working class.

The UK TV news media is either the BBC (neutral, but the editorial on many of the lighter news comedy shows is definitely left) or Sky (Rupert Murdoch owned, and Right-wing, though I've not noticed it being exceptionally biased). In fact, I'd say it's probably the opposite in the UK than the US... print media is clearly and openly biased, while the news media isn't so much. The US it -feels- to me that the print media is mostly neutral while the TV media is openly Democrat or Republican biased.

The news assessment is that the UK is entering a period of five/six party politics, rather than the 2.5 parties it had before....

Quote: TheCesspit

The news assessment is that the UK is entering a period of five/six party politics, rather than the 2.5 parties it had before....

All that means is they will have to line up on a side. Would be like the USA splitting from Dem/GOP to Dem/green/labor/gay and GOP/Tea Party/fundamentalists.

In such a case there would be little chance for a flip, maybe labor/green fights. I know we do not have a Parlimentary system, but the case is politics almost always has to divide to two sides.

Quote: AZDuffman

All that means is they will have to line up on a side. Would be like the USA splitting from Dem/GOP to Dem/green/labor/gay and GOP/Tea Party/fundamentalists.

In such a case there would be little chance for a flip, maybe labor/green fights. I know we do not have a Parlimentary system, but the case is politics almost always has to divide to two sides.

The sides can change depending on the issues. This is how Canada operated during the minority government. On some issues, the fiscally conservative Liberal party would side with the Cons. On some socially conservative issues, the Bloc would side. And even the Conservatives worked with the NDP (left wing) on unemployment legislation.

But generally, there are two sides, but also much public debate on what those sides stand for, and that's useful, I reckon. Left vs. Right can be so dull without the nuance.

Quote: TheCesspit

But generally, there are two sides, but also much public debate on what those sides stand for, and that's useful, I reckon. Left vs. Right can be so dull without the nuance.

I have asked here before but can't get a good discussion going, Gun control, gay rights, and global warming have essentially no relationship to each other. But not only do the parties line up, the voters line up. Take the top 10 issues and you can be sure that most people will polarize. IOW, the ones agreeing on gun rights have the same view on global warming.

I don't think it can be overcome.

Quote: AZDuffman

I have asked here before but can't get a good discussion going, Gun control, gay rights, and global warming have essentially no relationship to each other. But not only do the parties line up, the voters line up. Take the top 10 issues and you can be sure that most people will polarize. IOW, the ones agreeing on gun rights have the same view on global warming.

I don't think it can be overcome.

I feel it's partly narrative driven.

BUT Social conservatism tends to be less progressive, by it's very nature (the clue is in the name). The first two are items where there is an established order, and other seek to change it. The latter, I am a bit more confused on why the issue goes along party lines... though I understand exactly why the -response- to the issue is so divisive, because of course the fiscal right would resist state-driven increases on taxation and regulation as a response to the threat. It appears to me that the response drives that side to reject the problem as being an issue.

Perhaps that's why... all those three issues tend to involve more government, not less, more change of the status quo and away from 'old values'?