I’ve been watching the UK Prime Minister election cycle with some interest. It’s been great to see the debates between the three main contenders televised–this gives a good look at some of the issues facing the UK in terms of what we can expect if we continue down this road of more entitlements and more and more spending of money we don’t have. For instance, during the second debate, it was amusing to see the three candidates try to grapple with the problem of masses of people taking unemployment while turning down job offers and the masses of other public entitlements they give for just about anything or listening in the third debate to Clegg crash and burn over the UK version of amnesty for illegals. I giggled a little as they all bemoaned the horrors of securing the borders . . . of an island nation. But the point is the same there as it is here: no political will to do the right thing for the nation, best to pander to the PC leftie nutjobs who winge about how inhumane it is to
have enforce immigration laws, regardless of how inhumane it is to have millions of people living in the shadows of society and all that entails for both the illegals and the country.
I like Cameron (no surprise) and was glad that he won so many seats last night but find it a bit worrying that his Conservative party didn’t win the majority and control of the government. I don’t pretend to understand UK politics, but from listening to the commentary, it sounds like it’s possible for Brown (Labour and current PM, of course) and Clegg (“Liberal Democrat” aka prog nutjob) to join forces in some way and come up with a majority that allows Brown (or if he steps down–not likely–the new Labour leader) to stay at Number 10. Ack! Apparently they can patch together some sort of Frankenstein majority over there. I don’t really understand it, but it sounds very like our Electoral College process that can overturn the popular vote.
Another thing that struck me watching the returns last night is how having a bazillion parties is a disaster. Seriously. Some districts had 10 (some seemed to have 20ish, I didn’t count) candidates, some of whom pulled 40 votes or whatever. One district had at least five “Independents” running, and in another, and I’m not making this up, some genius ran for the “Nobody” party. And actually got a handful of votes. Sorry, but this doesn’t seem particularly desirable and rather makes a mockery of the electoral process (though of course they think it’s the epitome of democratic something or other), but then, they don’t have primaries there, so these weirdos don’t get weeded out. But the most striking thing about all these parties is that it means that someone can lead the country with as little as 23% of the popular vote, that’s probably about the number of hard left progs there are here in America. *shudder*
Anyway, the impetus for this post is not to waffle on about my impressions of the UK elections but to share some wisdom from Chris Matthews. And I’m not being snarky. It seems that Matthews can be quite insightful, if not the least bit self-aware. In his coverage of the UK elections last night (vid embedded below), he said in response to Brown’s calling a voter a “bigot”:
Nothing bothers a person more than having some snotty elitist–a Prime Minister– looking down their nose at somebody’s real concerns.
Yep. He said that. And he went on to say that there is nothing wrong with being concerned about illegal immigration, that it doesn’t automatically make you a bigot because you express concern about an issue that is “all over the polls.” Uh huh. Like BO’s takeover of our healthcare system was “all over the polls.” How was that again, Mr. Matthews, when American voters expressed concern about that issue? Nothing wrong with that, right? Or about illegal immigration here in the States? Another issue that is “all over the polls”?
He also asked his panelists if calling that voter a “bigot” hurt Gordon Brown. After all, that’s not a very nice thing to say about a citizen and voter, even according to Matthews. Does anyone else feel that they’d prefer being called a “bigot” by our president than the vile term that denotes sexual perversion he seems to prefer to describe us, which of course encompasses not only “bigot,” but all manner of other pejorative connotations . . . neatly wrapped up in one disgusting and insulting term?
One of the panelists, Katty Kay from the BBC, pointed out, quite insightfully, that it wasn’t simply the name-calling that hurt Brown, but “what it revealed about his character.” She explained, and see if this also sounds familiar, that Brown “says one thing in public but has a meaner character in private.” (Anyone feel like bitterly clinging to their guns and religion?) But that’s not the stunner, then Matthews says, without the slightest hint of irony:
[Brown] thought he was better than that women. I mean, if you think you’re better than a voter you’re a big trouble.
Yep, that about sums it up. See you in November.