The British election — A setback and a political realignment, not a devastating defeat by Miguel A. Faria, MD

Exclusive for
Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Saturday, June 10, 2017

The news and sound bites are reverberating and progressive internationalists are gloating at British Prime Minister Theresa Maythe supposed catastrophe that had befallen the British Prime Minister Theresa May (photo, right) and the Conservative (CON; Tories) Party in the U.K. elections. There is no question that the result was an unexpected disappointment — but was it the catastrophic or “devastating”defeat reported by most media sources and referred to as such by gloating EU officials and Labor Party politicians?

That it was a catastrophe or “devastating” is pure nonsense.

The media has become so biased, including the BBC that I used to respect for their objective and comprehensive reporting in most areas. But now, even the BBC has made common cause with the American liberal media when it comes to reporting politics in Europe and the United States. With the BBC and big media, objectivity has simply gone out the window!

What really happened — after the dust settled from the gloating media celebrations — is this:

In Great Britain, 326 seats are needed in the House of Commons for a majority party to rule.

Yes, the Conservatives lost the bare majority that they had possessed previously by losing a net of 12 seats (controlling now 318 seats) as trumpeted by the celebratory media. In fact, without seriously analyzing the results, the media rushed to judgment and have all but joined Labor politicians in calling for British Prime Minister Theresa May to resign.

British election map June 2017Of course, May acted correctly by refusing to do so and stating that she had the right to form a new government. In fact, following her lead, the Conservatives immediately regained that majority by forming an alliance with their political allies, the Center-Right Democratic Unionist Party (DUP, representing Northern Ireland, which won 2 additional seats). See map on left. The blue areas are the Conservative voting blocs; dark greeen, DUP; red, Labor; yellow, SNP.

And so Theresa May and the Conservatives will continue to govern the United Kingdom.

True, the Labor Party (LP) won 29 seats (controlling now 261 seats). But the fact is the Conservatives have a significant plurality over the Labor Party in the House of Commons, even if the Labor Party were joined by the Liberal Democrats who only command 12 seats.

Most interestingly, the biggest loser was not the Conservative Party but the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), the pro-EU and secessionist party of Scotland (now controlling 35 seats), which lost 21 seats to the Tories. In fact, the Conservatives swept the southern seats of Scotland formerly belonging to the SNP.

Listening to Labor leaders claiming victory and calling themselves the “real winners,” one would not have realized the reality of the numbers. Conservatives: 326 seats; Labor: 261 seats! Reading the headlines, one would have thought that Labor had won the election.

Theresa May said that she’ll “reflect on what we need to do to take the party forward.” Exactly, despite the unexpected setback, the Conservatives will continue to rule, and Brexit is still on track. Most unexpectedly, but a very welcomed surprise, is that much of southern Scotland is now behind British Conservatives — and the Conservatives will be ruling in an alliance with MPs from Northern Ireland!

The fact is that globalists and socialist internationalists are itching to squelch nationalism and freedom in Europe and the United States. They yearn for the fall of Theresa May in Britain and particularly Donald Trump in the United States.  The headlines and media coverage of the British election represent not sound reporting but malevolent wishful thinking. The election results were not catastrophic — but a realignment and a disappointing setback given Theresa May’s gamble in calling for the election at this time given the uncertainty of the times and the fickleness of representative democracy.

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is a retired clinical professor of neurosurgery and long time medical editor. He is the author of “Vandals at the Gates of Medicine” (1995); “Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine” (1997); and “Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise” (2002). His website is

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. The British election — A setback and a political realignment, not a devastating defeat., June 10, 2017. Available from:

A shorter but similar version of this article first appeared in the Macon Telegraph on June 9, and on GOPUSA, June 10, 2017.

Copyright ©2017 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)
Comments on this post

More bad news for the Democrats!

In “Lessons learned from the special election,” Atlanta Journal and Constitution writer Kyle Winfield provided a startling statistical comparison that certainly doesn’t bode well for Democrats.

If Winfield’s statement that the “Democrats’ slightly improved showing in 2016 might represent a ceiling, not a trend” wasn’t enough bad news for the Dems, then this startling election comparison should send the Democrats reeling:

“In November [2016], a virtually invisible Democrat named Rodney Stooksbury spent zero dollars and won 124,917 votes against Tom Price. This past week [June 2017], the widely celebrated Ossoff spent $30 million (including PACs) and won 124,893 votes against Handel.”

This means that after all the money they spent, and with the free exhortations of the media, the Democrats got nothing in return.

Enough said!

Special Election, journalistic ethics!

Some are still calling it "razor thin"(!)and claiming it means Trump's base is increasingly disappointed with him, or it would have been an even wider margin. That, then, is supposed to indicate it will be a cinch for the DEMS to win the midterms in 2018.

Every time you hear a lib speak nowadays, you are astounded, as you thought it couldn't get any more delusional. They still have no idea what the true reasons are that they can't win elections anymore.-ARB
Very true, Adam. So much for journalistic ethics! First, with the polarization of the country with 47% of the citizens dependent on the government dole, 4% points is no razor thin margin anymore! Second, they keep on saying "the most expensive House race in history," while avoiding the fact that it was so because of the DEMOCRAT spending from donations that came 97% from out of state progressives! Third, the bait and switch tactics: It was a close race and a possible Democrat takeover with disapproval of Trump, but now that she lost they have gone back to when compare the election when Tom Price used to win by such large margins, but now this time the "razor-thin" margin! --- MAF

Karen Handel wins! Watch the corrupt media biased reaction!

They could not help gloating and rejoiced in reporting the Conservative Party loss of the absolute majority in Britain  — reporting it as a devastating defeat, which it was not, only a misjudgment disappointment. Yes, since the election of Donald Trump in the U.S., the BBC has become as biased as the American media and joined the chorus of the progressive media- liberal bloc along with MSNBC, CNN, and the rest!

They were in absolute expectation of victory, already tasting blood in the highly contested Congressional election race in Georgia's 6th District, an open seat vacated when my friend Tom Price went to serve as Secretary of HHS.

Now at the time of the truly devastating political and psychological defeat for the progressive alliance of Democrats and mainstream media, all that the liberal press, encapsulated in the AP, can come with early in "the morning after" is an empty headline of biased despair:

"Republican Karen Handel wins Georgia special election, avoiding major upset in most expensive House race in US history."

The reported "razor-thin margin" once again turns to a wide margin victory. Another huge win for the GOP! No wonder the cat got the AP's tongue!

And I'm still waiting for the rest of the report... I better check with Fox News!

The most expensive Congressional race ( a special run-off) in history spent as follows:
Republican Karen Handel: $3.2 million
Democrat Jon Ossoff: $22.5 million

These figures come from campaign finance reports filed with the FEC. Moreover, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis showed that only 3.5 percent of Ossoff’s donations came from Georgia, the rest from out of state liberals.

The Brits— Conversation with Charles Richardson

Mr. Charles E. Richardson: Quite a take on the British election. The Conservatives gamble and call for an early election believing they can win more seats. Instead, they end up losing their majority and who do you blame? The media for piling on the irony of the situation. Great spin, though, but too easy a target. A picture, like May's face this morning was worth a thousand words and said it all.
Dr. Miguel A. Faria: Her gamble, true, but to begin with, who predicted the gain of fifteen or twenty seats, the media! I think Charles you must agree that it is a sobering setback but not a devastating defeat for reasons I described!

Disappointed face and all, the lady did not throw in the towel, but went to the queen and formed a new government! Given time she may become a bit of an iron lady as la Margaret Thatcher!
Mr. Charles E. Richardson: Her gamble for sure. If she didn't think she would gain seats, why call for an election and after every election the party with the most seats has to go see the queen whether they have a majority or not. The lost is only devastating in the sense that she thought she was going to deliver a whooping and instead received one even though not fatal — this time. Have a great weekend.

Mr. Charles E. Richardson is the The Telegraph Opinion Page Editor and Center for Collaborative Journalism, Mercer University, Macon. GA
Addendum: Dr. Faria: And if becomes devastating, it is not because of the 12 lost seats, but by political infighting & cannibalism within the Conservative Party itself, as we saw with the betrayal of Margaret Thatcher.