The noises being made by certain political commentators belonging to the Islington (and thereabouts) Progressive Consensus are revealing that there may well be a great fear amongst LibLabCon honchos of a tremendous result for UKIP in the May elections. The main evidence to hand is the very early but increasing amount of chatter regarding a Grand Coalition of the Labour and Tory party – a construct that will by necessity have to be formed, or so the thinking goes, to fight off “insurgent parties” in order that the “right decisions” are made at a time of great national crisis. Naturally, such is the strangeness of this arrangement that for it to become physically manifest it would need a good deal of careful insertion into the sphere of public awareness and the political zeitgeist – its potential to cause sudden alarm in the British electorate would that way be mitigated. For the Establishment has been sustained these many past years on the appearance of fundamental Labour and Tory adversarial oppositeness as an expression of irreconcilable points of principle – a checks and balance bonus in terms of the British constitution. So a sudden unveiling of the actual LibLabCon as a reality outside the confines of conspiracy theory, as a mainstream audience gained a crash instruction course in the reality of the British one-party dictatorship, could sound the death knell for the vassal Westminster puppet.
Beyond the public rationalisations for a Grand Coalition, and the fantasy of acting for the national good, the objective is of course the denial of UKIP. UKIP represents the mass rejection by Britons of the failing body politic and its degenerative cultural and social project, it is the one “insurgent” that any grand coalition would be meant to disarm [the SNP is merely in search of its own fiefdom]. For under normal conditions, and with UKIP returned in modest numbers to the House of Commons, those MPs could extract a referendum on EU membership, or other implementation of UKIP policy, in return for cooperation on a confidence and supply legislation-by-legislation basis. Instead, a Grand Coalition would prevent this opportunity, and therefore deny a very large component of the electorate their power, through their UKIP representatives, over the Government. This would be a huge abuse in the first instance, but voters must be prepared to see the Grand Cartel rolled out even in a situation where UKIP is the party that wins most MP; in that case, expect the conditioning from the corporate-media to try to normalise the tremendous injustice to be proportionally immense.
In recent days the Greeks, in their general election, kicked their own LibLabCon from positions of power that were frankly being used to loot and facilitate other robbery. The international corporate types and financiers who puppeteer European government (as spoken of just this week by Farage) were nervous before, but Greece now has people in office who are wise to them – the Independent Greeks are duly called conspiracy theorists. The people who rule the West are worried about the way the wind is blowing. This article, dating from last week, reports on stuff emanating from the Financial Times – that messenger for the ruling class – and to say the language is interesting is an understatement:
The FT reports today that business is most terrified of the instability that could come with a hung Parliament, and the prospect of another election in the autumn. Could a UK Grand Coalition reassure the markets (as they seem to in Germany and elsewhere) or further create momentum for another swift election and more instability?
But the first inkling that the British Establishment thought that something very dramatic would happen at their 2015 elections was very possibly betrayed in certain Spectator articles as early as 2013. In December of that year, James Forsyth, the magazine’s political editor, wrote a piece entitled “Insurgents are remaking British politics”, in which he predicted:
The passionless politics of recent years has created an enthusiasm deficit that Salmond and Farage are busily trying to fill. What our politics so desperately needs is leaders who can offer a positive, optimistic vision for Britain that breaks out of the focus-grouped verbiage that so dominates Westminster politics. The national figure who can provide that will win a string of electoral prizes.
Forsyth does not so much predict UKIP to win the 2015 general election, but identifies UKIP’s appeal as something for the LibLabCon to emulate as part of a strategy for victory. The analysis is dishonest, of course. Establishment stalwarts do not want conviction politics when there is an unpopular Marxist cultural revolution to deliver – just the appearance of it will do to fool the voters. Tub-thumping, and delivering the message a little bit differently from what has become generic will not stop a lie being a lie – people are fed up with government-by-hoax, and it’s a truth that LibLabCon focus groups, more apparatus of political artifice as they are, will never find.
More spin, then, is only to be expected when the froth it floats upon is written from inside the political stitch-up. Indeed, some very little digging reveals Forsyth’s exceptional LibLabCon-Establishment credentials. His wife (although the couple might possibly insist on the word “partner”) is Allegra Stratton – the political editor of the BBC’s Newsnight. He is also on the advisory board of Phillip Blond’s ResPublica think-tank. Blond had been director of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos before that. Perhaps most infamously, Blond was the author of the book “Red Tory”, and a big influence on David Cameron’s Alinsky-esque “Big Society” agenda.
In the end, it is the sub-headline of Forsyth’s piece that actually betrayed all the early nerves, and perhaps some panic too: “The big parties have no answer either to the SNP or to Ukip. The consequences could be dramatic”. Mr Forsyth might not write his headlines – he might do – but whoever does let the cat out of the bag: the age of government-by-hoax is over; the dramatic consequences written of would therefore be the sudden demise of the LibLabCon – which can only operate in the context of a duped electorate. If the author, in all his scumbag-college lowliness, could see the signs back in 2011 – to wit the writing was on the wall for the Westminster puppet (see this article in which the end of the LibLabCon – and jail-time – is predicted), then we can be sure that Oxbridge graduates now fixtures in the Establishment knew it too in 2013. What most UKIP supporters and members might not appreciate is that behind the fog of war – the propaganda – it is highly likely that the LibLabCon has these many years been fighting a battle in retreat in the knowledge that the stitch-up would soon end; the objective, then, had become to set all the dynamite on the bridges before becoming overrun by the enemy close on their heels. But the LibLabCon has run out of time, and it still will not have finished its work by May 2015. It would need the Grand Coalition to survive long enough into the future to complete the project.
Before we look at some of the material that has been installing the idea of a Grand Coalition, the reader must understand what is driving it: the fearsome extent of that possible UKIP result. So, in October 2014 Survation published a poll that tore a hole through the fabric of the illusion of perpetual LibLabCon hegemony. The MailOnline cited televised election night regular John Curtice, professor of politics at Strathclyde University, who translated the opinion poll into seats at Westminster. The results were as follows:
Labour 253; Conservative 187; UKIP 128; Lib Dems 11; Others (including SNP and Ulster MPs) 71.
(Funnily enough, results extrapolated from yesterday’s Mirror/Survation poll see UKIP awarded with just 16 seats – less seats from the same sort of percentage; it’s obviously cunning perception-shaping to promote the idea of the futility of voting for UKIP).
From the MailOnline analysis, one can already see that the Tories could not form a government without a coalition with UKIP – which we can be quite certain will never happen just for differences of fundamental principle (i.e.no LibLabCon party is ever going to risk being in a position of giving a binding referendum on EU membership that it could lose), and UKIP knows it would suffer badly were it chained to the rotten Tory corpse. Labour would need the assistance of the SNP to govern in a majority – depending on the success of the latter part, which may yet have been overstated recently. Otherwise, the electorate is most likely to see Labour depending on Tory assistance to drive the final nails into the UK’s coffin – this would be the Grand Coalition, albeit informally framed, at work.
The worse news yet for the LibLabCon is that in the EU elections – a real world poll – UKIP scored 27% – and in the MailOnline figures we can see where this would materialise from. For they follow a fashionable prejudice and indicate a one sided collapse in the vote – that is, from the Tories (the Lib Dems take a proportionally larger hit although it doesn’t look as dramatic). Labour currently have 257 seats, so theirs, says the polling, would only be a marginal decline. This isn’t going to reflect the real world, and if one starts to take even a small number of seats from the Labour column, and enter them into UKIP’s, then the gap between UKIP and the Tories begins to get perilously small. In fact, if 59 seats are swapped to UKIP so that it matches the Tories, Labour’s new figure is 194. With numbers like this, the need for a formal coalition between Labour and the Tories becomes an absolute necessity for the purpose of continuing the work of subsuming Britain into the EU, and fully realising the British Marxist police state. Now we look at how the seed is being sown.
September of 2014, the New Statesman. It’s author, Peter Wilby, was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He still writes a weekly column for the latter publication.
Imagine a Tory-Labour tie on 295 seats each [after the general election], with the Lib Dems reduced to 20, Ukip on ten seats and others 20. Try forming a governing majority out of that with wars raging in the Middle East and eastern Europe. A Tory-Labour grand coalition, anybody? Remember, you read it here first.
Wilby suggests that wars will be used as an excuse to form the Grand Coalition. This is a worrying notion. Britain is not at direct war in the arenas mentioned as yet. Could the Establishment be planning to become involved in an overt conflagration to justify its machinations at Westminster? A red flag regarding a major false flag attack should perhaps be hoisted.
The next piece is from Mary Dejevsky, appearing on the Spectator website on 12th October 2014. Dejevsky is also usually connected with the Independent. After discussing various permutations for coalitions, Dejevsky proceeds to endorse an official Progressive-Consensus shut-out:
What no one has mentioned, however, is a German solution – a ‘grand coalition’ of Conservative and Labour that leaves the fringe parties on the fringe and governs from the centre – which is, after all, the territory that a majority of voters inhabit. A Conservative-Labour coalition might seem to go completely against the grain of Britain’s adversarial politics. But it has been observed time and again in recent months that Cameron, Miliband (and Clegg) have a significant amount of political ground in common. Centre-left and centre-right are not so very far apart.
The analysis is, once again, dishonest. If a majority of voters vote for the Tories and for Labour, then as we should understand those parties’ position on the superannuated political spectrum, those voters would not be in the “centre”. The “centre” has shifted to the “left”. As part of this process, Britain has also become a Luciferian/Marxist cultic society where deviant practices are considered normal – the reasonable has been turned into the controversial. Telling people that they are in the centre, when they and their society are verging on lunacy, is another LibLabCon deception. The uniting of Labour and the Tories with no pretence at the adversarial nature of British politics does not unite centrist forces, but unleashes the forces of extremism to do what they will. Of course, it has to be seen for what it really is, and stopped.
The next mention comes in a piece appearing in the Financial Times the day before New Years Eve, 2014, in which various writers made predictions about 2015. FT leader writer, Jonathon Ford, predicts that there will be a “National Government” after the election.
[The new coalition will recreate] the “National” governments of the 1930s by bringing the two main parties, Labour and Conservatives, into power together. As in 1931, this will be a matter of necessity, not choice.
The shrinkage of the vote of all three main parties will make it impossible to construct a workable coalition involving the Liberal Democrats and either the Tories or Labour. The price of doing business with the surging fringe parties, such as the Scottish National party and Ukip, will be too high for either Labour or the Conservatives to stomach. So will the risk of a minority administration, followed by a quick second poll.
The fact that this idea gets a serious treatment in the Financial Times suggests that there is much to it – who is the audience of the FT after all? Notice that the Grand Coalition is being described as a necessity – the Establishment will be forced into the arrangement, and the arrangement will be necessary to save the Establishment; please consider once more: “the price of doing business with the surging fringe parties… will be too high”.
In the new year there has been a flurry of activity. On the 2nd day of January, there were two pieces. The first is the one that caused a bit of a stir on the internet (but not much of one). Ian Birrell – a former deputy editor of the Independent speechwriter for David Cameron during the 2010 election campaign – wrote in the Guardian. The following is a (lengthy) extract with emphasis added:
Party leaders, however, may have to build broader coalitions than our current two-party version. I have heard one Downing Street insider punt the concept of a Tory-Lib Dem-Green coalition, a senior Tory suggest a Conservative-SNP deal based on faster devolution, and a Labour figure float a Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Plaid Cymru agreement reliant on big tax rises and slower spending cuts. Any of these fragile groupings could be held hostage by single-minded militants or single-issue obsessives capable of collapsing the government…
A government of national unity between Labour and the Conservatives may sound far-fetched… yet, while there are serious disagreements [between them], the two parties have more in common with each other than with the insurgents on many key issues.
…the two parties could start to hammer out those huge issues confronting the nation that conventional politics seems incapable of solving. These include the creation of a modern political system, the resolution of Britain’s haphazard drift into federalism and a workable funding solution to save the creaking NHS.
This is a very important piece because it demonstrates the unresponsiveness of the ruling elite to the people it has made believe it represents. That number of the represented electorate – and a fairly large one it is too – who are in opposition to the Progressive Consensus are characterised as being militant and obsessive. Again this is all part of the usual sort of upside-downedness and post-normal deception where the uncontroversial is deemed erratic and dangerous. In fact, this is all very disreputable and shows the mania of the political elite of Britain. What Birrell does is argue a case in support of tyranny – the British Government must not truck any dissent or any physical obstacle towards the pursuit of its goals, he says; in other words, the end justifies the means – a Marxist concept.
Furthermore, the Grand Coalition is being presented here as a way to create a new type of politics – that sounds loving, does it not? How perverse, then, that it forms part of an advocacy for overt dictatorship. Consider the problem: the elite have a programme that needs to be implemented, but ‘conventional’ politics cannot get it done; the answer is a closed-shop and no room for a dissenting voice. Government with checks and balances must go, and government that rubber stamps the will of a few must be established. And what will happen to those dissenting voices who will surely not just disappear so very easily? Well, that’s what a police state is for. This individual gives us an absolutely hideous glimpse of the final destination that LibLabCon Grand Coalition ultimately leads to. In fact, what Britain needs to fix politics is diametrically opposed to this twisted vision.
As mentioned, on the same day as the above piece an article appeared in the Telegraph online version which reported the opinion of Rob Wilson the Conservative Charities minister in the Cabinet Office. Wilson had been on Radio Four’s PM programme. He had had this to say:
I think we could end up with a situation where if we do try and form a rainbow coalition it would end up with two elections in one year and we would find that the May election wouldn’t be the only election that year.
I think it would be very difficult to conduct a government with any authority with more than two parties involved. There could be a whole rag-bag of different views and pressures that would make government more difficult to conduct.
Here, then, is a view from inside the Cabinet. A government comprised of more than two parties is not desirable because it would be unworkable. This is the introduction of a talking point that will be repeated in the months to come.
Finally, on 5th January a piece appears in the Telegraph written by Ben Wright – the Senior City Editor at that paper. He was previously the City Correspondent at The Wall Street Journal and before that Editor of Financial News
Were such an (admittedly unlikely) alliance to form [the Grand Coalition], it might – from a business point of view – be a consummation devoutly to be wished. For one thing, it would keep Ukip and Scottish National party hands from the tiller of state.
Here we get down to the crux of the issue, and the anti-democratic arrogance is fantastic. Government in Britain has been about the enrichment of a certain corporate class, and it is obvious that the real cause of concern for the types that Wright represents is that Britain will leave the EU and there should be an end to the opportunities for exploitation and gangsterism that that entails. As such, no party should be allowed near the reins of power who would risk big business interests.
This article is already over-lengthy, so the summary will be extra short. There is an elite in Britain who don’t believe in the sovereignty of the British people because it would stand in the way of their ambitions. But it is right and natural that there be political opposition because of its ability to restrict a tyrant. The British elite objects to this, and is plotting to invent ways to bypass the checks on its power. It thinks that the British will fall for a story about the importance of achieving in government in response to global and national emergencies (which we should be suspicious of being deliberately instigated by government agencies for the purpose). This cannot be allowed to happen. It becomes increasingly clear while writing this that the only way to escape the totalitarianism planned for them, Britons must create a UKIP majority government in 2015.