Tory Party unexpectedly wins big in Great Britain

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The rage builds: Conservatives in Great Britain have won a much larger victory in today’s election than polls or pundits had predicted.

The article attributes the surprisingly big win to a variety of factors. Yet, this election reminds me of the Israeli election, which the polls and pundits all said would be a tie, or go to the liberal parties. Instead, Netanyahu’s rightwing party won big.

Both elections, plus other recent elections in the U.S., suggest to me that there is a growing disconnect between the electorate and the intellectual class who makes these predictions. With such a disconnect, don’t be surprised if the candidate who wins the election in 2016 is the one who is least liked by that pundit class.


  • Cotour

    The first indications that a similar Conservative result will be happening in America will be the rejection and withdrawal of both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton from the race, despite both their massive corporate supplied $$$ war chests $$$. Hillary’s exit is being manufactured right now and Jebs will hopefully follow.

    If the presidential election comes down to either one of them then the people of America may as well not show up for any following elections, they will at that point be owned.

  • Bush will disappear with the first primaries. He has no real support among the electorate.

    However, more than anything I can say or express, I want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic candidate. They really have no one else, and a starker choice between her and almost any one of the more conservative Republican candidates, all of whom I think should be favored at this time, could not be imagined. Moreover, she is a terrible politician, who puts her foot in her mouth with almost everything she says. Even the press doesn’t like her that much. She will lose in a landslide against Scott Walker, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz, all of whom I consider having the inside track for the nomination.

  • Cotour

    I see your points but I would prefer that they both be soundly rejected and eliminated prior to either one becoming the standard bearer for their party. Why? Because stuff happens and I do not want either of them to be positioned to become the president by default because of some unforeseen event or situation.

    Because the Dems have such a relatively weak bench I would prefer she not be there anyway, lets not underestimate the potential for the Republicans to self eliminate themselves from contention in the usual manner.

    How do Republicans accomplish this? Two issues 1. Abortion and 2. Anything Gay. They tend to paint themselves as anti women religious zealots and control freaks and that has a negative Defcon 1 polarizing effect on any independent Democrat who might have considered not voting for the Democrat.

    I would prefer to play it safe here.

  • Abe Windsor

    OK drop abortion and you lose 28 million Republican voters
    how many moderates can you bring out?
    2012 four million Republicans did not vote.
    2008 six million Republicans did not vote.
    Obama is importing four million new Dim voters for 2016.

    On Gays how many of the people that gave $20 to total $840,000
    for the Pizza Shop the Shria Dims wanted to stone out of business
    do you not want to vote in 2016?

  • CVA

    Ok….I know I am going a bit off topic, but, is there any one else who recoils whenever progressives are referred to as “intellectual class” or “intellectual elite?” Seriously, if ever there was a misnomer or quite literally an oxymoron this type descriptor in this context makes my skin crawl.
    Henceforth, let us refer to progressives as what they are, i.e. intellectually, ethically, spiritually challenged.

  • Edward II

    I call them Regressive “Progressives”

  • danae

    I think many independents (and, of course, the politically naive) vote for the candidate they find most likeable. I want Hillary to stay in the race. Her queenly affect, aside from her growing reputation for shady dealings, doesn’t seem likely to appeal to many voters who aren’t committed Democrats.

  • Your point is well taken. I use the term “intellectual elite” more as an insult than an accurate description, but it isn’t a very accurate term. “Elitists” or “intellectual snobs” might be better.

  • PeterF

    I would love to see Hillary “Rotten” Clinton perp-walked. And her rapist husband too.
    I saw a recent compilation of conservatives and they were asked what one word would you use to describe Hillary.
    I would have said “crook”

    Oh and congratulations to David Cameron for an incredible win. Soon you will see the Lamestream media attempting to nullify this election.

  • Cotour

    I only suggest that they be able to properly communicate their position, what ever it happens to be, whether it be for or against. I am hopeful that some of these next gen Conservatives are better equipped to do so.

    Republicans communicate in a way that allows their positions on these issues to be easily turned against them. If the Conservatives that refused to vote in past elections because they realized that they were just voting for a Republican RINO are to participate they need someone that has a fundamental beliefs system and can communicate it to vote for and not a vote against.

  • Cotour

    They are “intellectuals”, I don’t know how elite they are. These “progressive” people are highly educated and trained in social manipulation and tend to be able to transmit their “morality” to the public and it sounds very reasonable. However when you dig further into the substance of their theory of existence and governance you find that they want to run everyone’s lives to a ridiculous degree.

    I have recently listened to two true believers, Bernie Sanders and a radio host who’s last name is I believe is Wolf on WBAI. They are very well spoken but to listen to the bulk of their fleshed out solutions is chilling to me. They are all ready willing and able to rework the accomplishments of the people who some how were able to craft our Constitution and trade it for their subjective and moral interpretation of what your’s mine and everyone else’s rights should be and with the added bonus of “social justice”.

    Because they are very well educated and can so competently communicate they sound reasonable compared to someone arguing that people are better of determining their own future. And what I understand is that many people who hear them speak are not forensically dissecting their speech as I do and as many here do, they swallow it hook, line and sinker. And they want to follow that way of least resistance.

    The worth while things in life are generally hard to do and not easy, easy is the way of the follower attempting to just live their lives.

  • Cotour

    Do you remember how the economy was manipulated against McCain’s interests when he ran against Obama? I do not want that same thing to happen for Hillary, I want her pushed out and rejected by her own party, in public, in shame for the many, many reasons that exist.

  • Cotour

    A little Clinton context for everyone. Bill Cosby has had to date I think its 32 women who have come forward and in public have accused him of drugging them and rapping them. IMO after the first 4 or 5 that becomes pretty damning.

    Bill Clinton has a total of 19 women who have come out in public and have accused him of similar offences.

    Q: How does any woman (or man for that matter) justify supporting anything he has touched or is involved in, including his wife?

  • Edward

    Thank you for distinguishing yourself from me.

    I like your phrase.

    A problem with people who think of themselves as smart is that they tend to believe that any idea they think up must be correct, after all, they are too smart to be wrong. This leads to other thinking, such as: we thought up the solution, but since it didn’t work, it must be because we did not apply enough of the solution (e.g. Obama’s stimulus plan, or any other Keynesian Economics plan).

    They cannot think of themselves as having a wrong idea, so they tend not to dismiss or make adjustments to their theories, when they fail (hypotheses, actually, as they do not pass when compared against reality; e.g. global warming).

    I know this to be true, because it is an idea that I thought of, and I am too smart to be wrong. ;-)

    I have high hopes for the future, because I think that We the People (including those in Great Britain) are beginning to realize that those of us who think we are so smart are not as smart as we think we are. It turns out that we don’t really know what is best for each and every person in the country, that one size does not fit all (as Canada found out with their healthcare fiasco), that different solutions apply to different people — even for the same problem.

    (Even free speech is not right for everyone. Chris Cuomo is now showing that he is not so smart, after exercising his right to free speech in the recent Pamela Geller case.)

    Now, if only those we elect will bring themselves to rule differently than those Regressive “Progressives” whom we (and the British) voted out …

  • Abe Windsor

    Cotuor Sir!¬
    Maybe you would like to design a series of protocols for the GOP Candidates that can survive the combined output of 106,000 working journalists, 125,000 elected Dim Regressives and their staffs, over 100,000 Professors at 4,000 Colleges, and another 150,000 NGO Professionals;  funded it seems like by George Soros hisself,  and his Council of 3,000 Billionaires and Centi- millionaires!

  • Cotour

    I did not say it was easy, I am in my small way working on the project you suggest, both here and in my everyday interactions.

    To be clear when I wrote: “easy is the way of the follower attempting to just live their lives.”

    That in no way disparages anyone who just lives their life or indicates that somehow they are less worthy of their freedom, we all are entitled to live life as we determine and are best able to live it.

    My point is that while people are immersed in their everyday struggle to do just that, live their lives, those who would lead them are willing to trade their freedoms in their acquisition of power. And IMO those who would lead from the left are very willing to entrap the people with other peoples money and create a dependency on their model in order to maintain and retain their power. The manipulation from the right is a bit different, both in general are detestable, America exists somewhere in between with a slight right twist.

    And that IMO is a very sick and dark manipulation, especially when it is done under the shield of “helping” to those who are not equipped or ill equipped to help themselves, or understand when they are being manipulated for their vote.

    Strategy Over Morality (S.O.M.), power at any cost.

  • Cotour

    And I support my point with this timely news item:

    While the government may be able to reasonably (?) argue to some degree that it has the authority to set some kind of wage minimum for workers employed by the private sector within a state they certainly do not have any kind of right to set what I call a maximum minimum wage or a living wage. At that point they have commandeered the privately held company and are now directly running it and the owners private property. These kinds of jobs for the most part are entry level transitional jobs and are not to be manipulated into any kind of job that an individual aspires to or bases their existence on (sorry, but that is the reality of competition and economics). For the state to do so is an Obamonation.

    The states next endeavor will be to set all prices and relieve all the private sector owners who risk much of any say so in such matters such as their profit margin and what a hamburger or anything else costs, what is there to stop them?

    As we can see McDonalds right now is going through a painful transitional phase driven by customer demands and reduced revenue. Is the state going to solve these problems for the private company by ruling that all citizens are to patronize their business and pay $7.00 for a hamburger and cap their overhead costs for them? Is the state going to lower the mandatory unemployment or worker comp rates for these company’s? Of course not. Just more socialist BS.

    This we can strongly argue IS fascism and an example of over reach by government as they attempt to pander to their base dependents which they have so conveniently created.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *