Unexpected triumph means Cameron can govern UK on his own

[Lite Beer]

Unexpected triumph means Cameron can govern UK on his own
DANICA KIRKA, Associated Press
JILL LAWLESS, Associated Press

LONDON (AP) — After years of sharing power, David Cameron pulled off an unexpected election triumph that gave the Conservative prime minister a second term with an outright majority Friday and dealt a stinging defeat to his three main rivals.

Standing before the glistening black door of 10 Downing Street, Cameron pledged to govern as the party of "one nation, one United Kingdom." But he faces a fractured Britain — divided by rich and poor, by separatist gains in Scotland and by doubts over its place in the European Union.

The election ushers in a new era in British politics, with veteran lawmakers ousted by a public that made clear it had lost trust in its political leaders. The victors included a 20-year-old Scottish nationalist who beat out a senior Labour Party leader in Scotland.

It was also unexpected. Polls had predicted a dead heat — a result that would have meant days of haggling to form a new government. Queen Elizabeth II was out of town at her castle in Windsor, and needed to rush back to London for the traditional meeting at Buckingham Palace in which the victor offers to form a government.

By the time Cameron met the monarch all three of his major rivals had resigned: Ed Miliband of the Labour Party, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage of the U.K. Independence Party.

For the losers, Cameron offered sympathy. "Elections can be bruising clashes of ideas and arguments, and a lot of people who believe profoundly in public service have seen that service cut short," he said.

The surprising outcome merely underscored how much things have changed — that there is now a new unpredictability in British politics. The idea of two big parties squabbling over the spoils is over. There are new players — and some are very young. Some don't even want a United Kingdom at all.

"For the new government, it is not possible to carry on business as usual," said Murray Pittock, a professor at the University of Glasgow. "Such a course is not a sustainable or good course to ensure the survival of the UK."

With the Conservatives winning an outright majority in the 650-seat House of Commons, the result looked to be far better for Cameron than even his own party had foreseen. With all the votes counted, the Conservatives had 331 seats to Labour's 232.

But the new ruling class inherits a country divided by negative campaigning and infighting about the future. Fought largely over the economy, the race revolved around the question of whether the Conservative-led government charted the right course through the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis, the worst recession since the 1930s.

Cameron argued his party needed time to cement its successes after five years of budget cuts designed to shrink the deficit and bolster growth. His primary opponent, Miliband, focused the debate on inequality, saying the recovery hadn't trickled down to the poorest in this nation of 64 million.

Heaping further pressure on the working poor has been an influx of thousands of migrants from the European Union, particularly from the former eastern bloc countries that joined the 28-nation free-trade zone over the past decade. The influx has changed Britain, straining schools, hospitals and other public services.

Cameron's promise to hold a referendum and win concessions from the EU plainly resonated with voters worried that the country was losing its grip on its borders.

The result, and Britain's unease with the EU, will strengthen Cameron's hand in talks with EU leaders in Brussels, who are mindful of the power that Britain's banks and financial service industries bring to the bloc. The referendum has been promised by the end of 2017 — but Cameron has only pledged to hold it, not support it.

Still, his majority, however surprising, is small. His own party is divided on the issue of Britain leaving the EU. Many senior business leaders are vociferously opposed, as is Scotland. It won't be simple — and it all needs to be done without trampling the economic recovery.

"The pound surged against the euro and the dollar on news of a Conservative victory because the markets value continuity and fiscal austerity," said Peter Urwin, co-author of "It's the Economy, Stupid: Economics for Voters." ''But the increased risk ... will be the long-term economic hangover facing the country following this election result."

Labour took a beating in Scotland, mostly from energized Scottish nationalists who pulled off a landslide that gave the Scottish National Party 56 of the 59 seats.

The vote represents "a clear voice for an end to austerity, better public services and more progressive politics at Westminster," SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon told the BBC.

It also greatly strengthens a party that wants to split from the country all together.

"The Scottish lion has roared this morning across the country," said former SNP leader Alex Salmond, who was elected in the constituency of Gordon.

The most symbolic win belonged to Mhairi Black, the 20-year-old university student who defeated Labour Party heavyweight Douglas Alexander to become the youngest British lawmaker since 1667. The win underscored the extent of the Scottish National Party's triumph — and Scotland's rejection of Labour, the party that long counted the north as its base.

"The people of Scotland are speaking, and it is time for their voice to be heard at Westminster," Black said.

One of the big losers of the day was Farage, who resigned after losing his race. His U.K. Independence Party came in third in the popular vote, but won only one seat — a casualty of an electoral system in which the candidate with the highest number of votes in each area wins, even if he or she does not gain a majority of votes cast.

Since UKIP's support is spread geographically across the country — rather than in any single area — it could be runner-up in many places but gain hardly a foothold in Parliament.

That discrepancy was another factor in the push for change — one that won't be solved any time soon. At a time when people are frustrated, and want to know why leaders keep failing to deliver, anything can happen.

"As for a new political class ... Labour may want to skip a generation," said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London. "It's also going to have to come up with some fresh ideas that keep its core supporters on board at the same time as reaching out to floating voters who don't trust it with their money."

___

Associated Press writers Sylvia Hui, Gregory Katz, Vitnija Saldava and Martin Benedyk in London, Paul Kelbie in Glasgow, Scotland, and Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin contributed to this report.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-05-09

[jpinx]

Democracy at it's worst, and unlikely to change given that the winners now in power have benefitted most

[Cats4ever]

I would offer the suggestion of optional preferential voting. That is you make one vote and then put in a second or third preference if you choose. First past the post is good in two party systems, but becomes unreflective of the electorate when there are many parties with a following.

[Thakkar]

I would offer the suggestion of optional preferential voting. That is you make one vote and then put in a second or third preference if you choose. First past the post is good in two party systems, but becomes unreflective of the electorate when there are many parties with a following.

Indeed. The voters have spoken, but The System did not actually hear.

T

[nontabury]

I would offer the suggestion of optional preferential voting. That is you make one vote and then put in a second or third preference if you choose. First past the post is good in two party systems, but becomes unreflective of the electorate when there are many parties with a following.

Indeed. The voters have spoken, but The System did not actually hear.

T

It was the Lemmings that voted. RIP the UK

[eliotness]

Just proves that the right to vote doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. The ruling elite carries on, business as usual.

[Steely Dan]

When asked what the Tories might do governing on their own and could not in a coalition Teresa May responded that there was pressing need for legislation on increased surveillance capabilities for the security forces. I say good its about time, France has just done something similar.

[connda]

It's about as unexpected as Hillary's win will be in 2016.

[gamini]

Democracy at it's worst, and unlikely to change given that the winners now in power have benefitted most

Yours is a minority view. The british public totally rejected labour whose tax and spend policies would have been disasterous for Britain as well as thier usual incompetance.

Cameron is the best person to lead the country. Most UK expats (except the red shirt brigade) should welcome the news. It means a strong pound which benifits most of us.

[gamini]

Just proves that the right to vote doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. The ruling elite carries on, business as usual.

better than the non elite

[uptheos]

Let's face it Ed lost the plot for labour.

Knowing that it was due to be a closely run election, making a statement such as "if being prime minister meant a deal with the SNP then there would be no Labour government" was ridiculous. Maybe that's his true feeling but to speak it out is political suicide.

Saying there would definitely be no referendum on Europe also turned a lot of people off.

Sometimes it's what you don't say that gets you over the line.

If Scotland still likes the SNP in a couple of years, it will be decades before Labour gets into power again.

[Lokie]

Democracy at it's worst, and unlikely to change given that the winners now in power have benefitted most

Yours is a minority view. The british public totally rejected labour whose tax and spend policies would have been disasterous for Britain as well as thier usual incompetance.

Cameron is the best person to lead the country. Most UK expats (except the red shirt brigade) should welcome the news. It means a strong pound which benifits most of us.

UK markets said it all yesterday, all green and good gains,

The Tory Libdems had not done a bad job overall, past 5 years. Labour would have been a disaster, if you have a bit of money or work and pay your dues...

Nope, well happy Cameron has got in to lead another term hopefully will get some of the scroungers off there ar $e$ and into work or at least do something for their free money and benifits instead of just sitting at home watching Jeramy Kyle, smoking weed, drinking cheap booze and breeding Staffadshhire bull terriers also turn the screws on the immigration free loaders and close the loop holes.

Seems to be light at end of tunnel now in blighty,. Labour lol? The day they put the wrong Millibrand brother in charge to lead them was the day they lost this election - Never back the wrong horse... (me? I voted UKIP, and sorry to see Farage go, at least he was entertaining when giving statements unlike the drivel from the rest of em)

[leytonorient]

Just proves that the right to vote doesn't mean you have the right to be heard. The ruling elite carries on, business as usual.

Britain has the strongest economy in Europe because of this government's policies. Red Ed and the Labour would have destroyed the country with borrowing and spending and freebies to the freeloaders.

[elgordo38]

Democracy at it's worst, and unlikely to change given that the winners now in power have benefitted most

I totally agree. The voters in all countries now are frightened too scared to move in a new direction. They are like deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming freight train. Best to stay with the devil they know how sad. Sheeple to be herded and fleeced. Unfortunately the UK voters will in the not to distant future regret handing a rightist party complete control. The rich are already no doubt lining up for their government handouts. Stock markets around the world hit new highs on the news. The poor can only look forward to more cuts in social spending. Why do things turn out this way as the poor outnumber the rich by thousands to one. If the plight of the poor is not properly addressed and the rich keep getting richer look forward to more social unrest on a grand scale.

[Baerboxer]

The most sensible comments I heard early yesterday were from Peter Hain (and I don't always agree with him), He said this should be a real wake up call for all those involved in politics - politicians, political parties, their researchers, lobbyists, media pundits, journalists - everyone, that the British public want change. They are fed up with the current system, including the old parties etc.

No one predicted this. But in retrospect.

UKIP and LD both had far more votes than the SNP. But SNP has 56 MP's to UKIP's 1 and LD's 8. The conservatives will govern based on something like 37% of the votes cast with a third of the electorate not bothering to vote. Hardly a mandate; and again a party in power based on a large minority of voters.

The SNP, on last figures I saw, took about 50% of the votes cast in Scotland, winning some seats by large margins but some by very small ones. More due to the collapse of a weak Labor party who offered no substantial policies and were perceived as weak in standing up to either Conservatives or SNP; and the LibDems who paid the price for the coalition, a weak leader and poor policies. This was not a second referendum, nor a vote for independence for Scotland, however much the Sturgeon or Salmond will spin it so. It was a vote against the perceived likely austerity programs from the Conservatives and the hope that the SNP will do better in mitigating them. Scotland has a small % of the UP population and has always made itself heard and punched way above its weight. The referendum was held and the result clear. There should not be another. Sturgeon cannot keep holding them till she gets the result she likes. The last referendum was undemocratic as the peoples of England, Wales and Northern Ireland were not consulted. One small part of an alliance should not be allowed to make decisions that affect the whole.

[ourmanflint]

Hooray the rich will get richer!

[jpinx]

The most sensible comments I heard early yesterday were from Peter Hain (and I don't always agree with him), He said this should be a real wake up call for all those involved in politics - politicians, political parties, their researchers, lobbyists, media pundits, journalists - everyone, that the British public want change. They are fed up with the current system, including the old parties etc.

No one predicted this. But in retrospect.

UKIP and LD both had far more votes than the SNP. But SNP has 56 MP's to UKIP's 1 and LD's 8. The conservatives will govern based on something like 37% of the votes cast with a third of the electorate not bothering to vote. Hardly a mandate; and again a party in power based on a large minority of voters.

The SNP, on last figures I saw, took about 50% of the votes cast in Scotland, winning some seats by large margins but some by very small ones. More due to the collapse of a weak Labor party who offered no substantial policies and were perceived as weak in standing up to either Conservatives or SNP; and the LibDems who paid the price for the coalition, a weak leader and poor policies. This was not a second referendum, nor a vote for independence for Scotland, however much the Sturgeon or Salmond will spin it so. It was a vote against the perceived likely austerity programs from the Conservatives and the hope that the SNP will do better in mitigating them. Scotland has a small % of the UP population and has always made itself heard and punched way above its weight. The referendum was held and the result clear. There should not be another. Sturgeon cannot keep holding them till she gets the result she likes. The last referendum was undemocratic as the peoples of England, Wales and Northern Ireland were not consulted. One small part of an alliance should not be allowed to make decisions that affect the whole.

The way UK democracy works is really flawed on so many levels. There are many solutions to this but none will be implemented because those in control have most to lose. UK voters have had offers of various forms of PR over the years but have always been too afraid to grasp the nettle. Issues like the Scottish referendum have been so badly managed as to verge on farce. Now the UK will huff and puff about their membership of EU and fudge some half-hearted solution -- again. The same broken old record is played again and again, and everyone says they want change, but no-one votes for it.

[jpinx]

Democracy at it's worst, and unlikely to change given that the winners now in power have benefitted most

Yours is a minority view. The british public totally rejected labour whose tax and spend policies would have been disasterous for Britain as well as thier usual incompetance.

Cameron is the best person to lead the country. Most UK expats (except the red shirt brigade) should welcome the news. It means a strong pound which benifits most of us.

Something around 35% voted for Cons - a clear minority - so the majority view was that he is not wanted, but the way UK politics is rigged

the majority don't win

[Srikcir]

Democracy at its best: "veteran lawmakers ousted by a public that made clear it had lost trust in its political leaders."

No military coups, no constitutional coups, no Election Commission coups, no Independent Organizations coups.

Just plain-wrapper voting by the electorate in an open and free society.

UK society is in control of its own destiny without losing their rights and liberties.

It's not a wonder that Prayut and the Junta would try to copy UK's constitutional monarchary system.

[BestBitterPhuket]

LOL! Lots of sore losers here. When you can't win, you want to change the rules of the game. Sounds like some of you have been too long in Thailand.

[Jonmarleesco]

'It also greatly strengthens a party that wants to split from the country all together.' No, Scotland is a country. The SNP wants to split from the Union.

[Jonmarleesco]

LOL! Lots of sore losers here. When you can't win, you want to change the rules of the game. Sounds like some of you have been too long in Thailand.

You mean the rules that give the prize to the first past the post? Not the ideal system, but it suits the two main parties; hence, it is unlikely to change any time soon.

[jayboy]

I think the journalist Charles Moore speaks for many.

"By boasting that she would forge an alliance for “progressive change” with Labour across the United Kingdom, she at last woke the English people from our slumber. Many of us don’t like “progressive change” at the best of times, and these are not the best of times. The idea that Ms Sturgeon’s party should help impose it – and we should pay for it – was just too much."

[connda]

Hooray the rich will get richer!

...and the poor will get poorer.

In the mean time,

in-between time,

ain't we got Funnnnnnn!

[twocatsmac]

Of eligible UK voters, 34% didn't bother to vote.

I expect this group to be the biggest moaners.

Under a proportional voting system the Tories would still have won the most seats.

240 to labours 198 and UKIP with 82.

A Tory & UKIP coalition? I could live with that.

[JDGRUEN]

A long detailed article outlining everything going on in the U.K... and not one time the word Muslim was used... Wow! I didn't know the Muslim problem had been resolved...

[7by7]

I think the biggest shock is the result in Scotland.

Having rejected independence, 50% of Scottish voters then voted for the SNP!

A huge swing to them from both Labour and the LibDems .

The Tory vote dropped by a only couple of per cent and they retained their one seat.

The big question is why?

Personally, I feel that Milliband's remarks about the SNP made a huge difference there, as did Labour's 'borrow and spend' policy. But, historically, the Tories have always done badly in Scotland so Scottish voters couldn't bring themselves to vote for them, and turned their backs on the LibDems as they saw a vote for them being a vote for a Tory/LibDem coalition.

Sturgeon is, understandably, jubilant and will doubtless make much of this result; but the result was more of a protest vote, against Labour in particular, than a vote for her party.

[Publicus]

I would offer the suggestion of optional preferential voting. That is you make one vote and then put in a second or third preference if you choose. First past the post is good in two party systems, but becomes unreflective of the electorate when there are many parties with a following.

The country is an integral part of Europe so the more fragmented political cliques the UK has the better it is for political stability that it has the first past the post system.

I'm thinking Oswald Mosley, Enoch Powell, UKIP, also concentrated populations of Sharia voters and the like. UKIP finished second in a number of constituencies so imagine if UK had proportional representation....or perhaps some in UK are indeed imagining it.

The just crashed instance of even the essentially mainstream LibDems entering into government and their stomping by the voters yesterday constitutes an excellent illustration of how the vast majority of voters prefer the larger and centrist parties in government, no matter.

Europe invariably gets itself into serious trouble when the political center has to compromise with marginal political parties. The record in the UK in this respect is nowhere near as atrocious as on the continent itself, but let's not tempt fate. Yes to first past the post in UK. Proportional representation in places such as Australia poses no such threat as it could in UK or on the continent.

[JockPieandBeans]

I think the biggest shock is the result in Scotland.

Having rejected independence, 50% of Scottish voters then voted for the SNP!

A huge swing to them from both Labour and the LibDems .

The Tory vote dropped by a only couple of per cent and they retained their one seat.

The big question is why?

Personally, I feel that Milliband's remarks about the SNP made a huge difference there, as did Labour's 'borrow and spend' policy. But, historically, the Tories have always done badly in Scotland so Scottish voters couldn't bring themselves to vote for them, and turned their backs on the LibDems as they saw a vote for them being a vote for a Tory/LibDem coalition.

Sturgeon is, understandably, jubilant and will doubtless make much of this result; but the result was more of a protest vote, against Labour in particular, than a vote for her party.

Just shows how much you know about Politics, especially North of the Border. The result was predicted on this Forum before the election was held.

Why ? The main part of that answer was in the resignation speeches or both Clegg and Miliband.

Clegg

Liberalism in the UK has failed.

Yes, people are now starting to wake up and finally, not willing to accept the Political BS, especially of Liberalism.

Miliband.

I believe that I was right to fight for the Britain that I believe in.

So arrogant, just like most Politicians. They cannot get it into their thick collective skulls that the Britain that the believe in is irrelevant. It is the Britain that the people believe in that matters.

His jumping into bed with the Tories when it looked like Scottish Independence might be a reality has not and will never be forgotten by the people of Scotland.

The Labour Party are finished in Scotland. The only way they will have any chance of resurrecting themselves is to form a Scottish Labour Party that has no links to the London Labour Party.

[jpinx]

The mis-representation of the majority in UK is cause for concern for any supporter of inclusive democracy. It's easy to have adversarial politics and FPTP election system, so that's what we have, but the result is that the majority are disenfranchised, they did not vote for the people that now govern them. Such situations cause at minimum a high level of discontent, and in flash points, much more direct action against the unwanted rulers.

Party membership is such that after Cons and Lab, the 3rd largest membership in all of the UK is SNP, so it is no surprise that they did well and now wield some influence in Westminster.