Category Archives: The Vassal Government

Exposing the false left-right paradigm

Fake Brexit and the Sleaford by-election; the British continue to be duped

While the Americans have used their votes in a Presidential election to start a process of change that will make their country a dynamic power, Britons still can’t stop putting a cross on election ballot papers as directed by an Establishment that hates them and is solely concerned with its self-preservation – to the detriment of the lives of those voters; people who literally support it. No wonder the Establishment thought it could win the EU referendum by exploiting an act of violence (let’s treat it at face value) against an MP. It must have thought influencing the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election by some confidence trickery in Parliament was relative child’s play.

What is being referred to is the vote on Wednesday 7th December on Labour’s motion regarding the Government’s Brexit timetable, and the amendment by the Tories (aided by the one so-called UKIP MP in the Commons). This was perceived by very many as a victory for those who want Britain to leave the EU. It was far from it. It was a trick – that worked – to dampen the UKIP challenge in the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election that was to take place the very next day after the vote. But that was only on one level. On another level, on closer inspection, the vote was about Parliament wriggling into a position to ignore the plain instruction that the result of the referendum clearly constitutes.

Before proceeding further, the reader needs to be absolutely clear. The Tory Party is pro-EU. ConservativeHome reported that they thought 185 Tory MPs voted for Remain, and 128 for Leave in the referendum. The Tory Party has a Remainer leader – the British have a crowned Prime Minister who didn’t want them to leave the EU. That this coronation happened reflected the fact that the British Government didn’t want the UK to leave the EU. And nothing has changed. The British Government does not want the UK to leave the EU. The Tory Party does not want the UK to leave the EU. Everything you see from now on that looks like process to leave the EU will merely be positioning to remain in the EU in all but name. You can take that to the bank.

So, now let’s look at the by-election issue. People awaking on Thursday in that Sleaford and North Hykeham constituency would have been faced with headlines like this:

Brexit: Keir Starmer presses for ‘detailed’ plan as MPs vote to trigger article 50
(source)

MPs vote to trigger Brexit in March after promise of a plan
(source)

Theresa May secures Article 50 victory in the Commons
(source)

All of a sudden it looked very much as if the House of Commons had voted to approve the triggering of Article 50.  If you were a Tory voter in Sleaford – and there is a lot of them – and you were a typical British politically-naïve BBC-consuming sheeple (a Conservatroid, in this case), and you had been dissatisfied with Theresa May’s progress, and you’d been thinking about voting UKIP, why would you now go and do that after such news?

On top of that, social media was full of jubilant Leavers. UKIP retweeted something from their MEP Jonathan Arnott – supposedly a champion chess player – congratulating Douglas Carswell (an expert on the culture of presentation in Parliament) for the part he played. Some Leavers picked up and ran with a ball that, incongruously, even the Remain-supporting Mirror was pushing:

“Which MPs voted against triggering Article 50 before April 2017?
(source)

Who were the 89 MPs who voted against the government’s Brexit timetable?
(source)

This is referring to 89 MPs who voted against a Tory amendment concerned with the triggering of Article 50.  This sort of thing is an old trick and a dead giveaway – it’s a clue (especially when the whole media is in lockstep synchronised promotion of the same talking point) that we’re dealing with an Establishment full-political-spectrum-wide psychological operation. The meme of scapegoating 89 MPs alone encourages people to focus on an irrelevance; it’s the whole House that is actually blame-worthy. It’s not the first time that the author has seen this tactic being used.

Back to the Sleaford by-election, and commentary has concentrated on Labour slipping from second place in the 2015 General Election to fourth. But this isn’t the real story. If we take the percentages attained by the four parties in 2015, and we apply them to the turnout of the by-election, we find that 1) the Tories received 915 votes less than they should – which represents a 5% loss. 2) UKIP received 738 votes less than they should – which represents a 14% loss. 3) Labour received 2327 votes less than they should – a 41% loss. The Lib Dems, however, gained 1732 votes more than they should have expected – a gain of 92%.

The by-election was a huge victory for the Lib Dems. We should attribute this to Remain voters identifying the Lib Dems as the vehicle for their battle. On the other side, UKIP failed to become the default party for Leave voters. In real terms, UKIP actually finished third, and this would be because of the hoax that the Commons pulled the night before the election. Because of that sham, and because of similar cons that the Establishment will undoubtedly stage going forward, the Tories will be seen as a safe pair of hands for Brexit in their strongholds. UKIP won’t get a look-in unless it calls the Tories out for the con-artists that they are. As for Labour, another pro-EU party, we won’t see it die as some people are expecting. It might lose out to the Lib Dems in the south, but it won’t lose to UKIP in the north if it is seen to be trying to achieve some kind of exit. This is how the Establishment plans to maintain the LibLabCon, and it will work as long as the British continue to be as spectacularly obtuse as they have always been (i.e. if they continue to be addicted to television – because that is the source of their astounding naivety and continuing actual stupidity).

So getting past the fake news, the truth is that no such event occurred in the House of Commons whereby the Government has been given the go ahead to trigger Article 50. Here’s a headline that better represents the reality:

MPs vote to demand Brexit plan and say article 50 should be triggered by end March
(source)

What happened was that MPs voted to demand a Brexit plan from Theresa May. That’s all. It doesn’t even mean there necessarily will be one (although we should expect it). There was no positive development with regards to Article 50 at all, in fact the detail suggests things are far from it. Basically, the LibLabCon conspired to produce more potential obstacles to Brexit (which was the Labour motion), and watered down the meaning of the referendum result (in the Tory amendment). Let’s look at it more closely.

This is the text of the Labour motion:

That this House recognises that leaving the EU is the defining issue facing the UK; notes the resolution on parliamentary scrutiny of the UK leaving the EU agreed by the House on 12 October 2016; recognises that it is Parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union; confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered; and calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked.

Look at this bit: “This House… recognises that it is Parliament’s responsibility to properly scrutinise the Government while respecting the decision of the British people to leave the European Union”

This is a reference to the denial of Crown Prerogative to trigger Article 50.  The statement proposes that the House of Commons recognise that denial. The House duly voted for it. So, now the author would hazard a guess that the Supreme Court would be safe to overturn the High Court decision to deny Crown Prerogative, as the Executive branch, with this motion, has conceded to Parliamentary scrutiny of the process. Now, considering that Parliament is merely a rubber stamping vassal of the EU, and the EU is an essential tool of the British Government for tyranny, we can expect the statement to mean this: Parliament should make sure that there is a Brexit that fools the British people, but that isn’t really a departure from the EU. The non-exit is going to be generated by a forest of problems that were planted by this motion, and will grow up in due course. And the basis of that statement comes from this: “[The House]… calls on the Prime Minister to commit to publishing the Government’s plan for leaving the EU before Article 50 is invoked”.

What this is talking about is the genesis of what will become an Article 50 bill where the Commons will add conditions – say continued membership of the Single Market – and the Government will tell the public that it is a necessary evil, but compromise must be made with the “sovereign” Parliament to execute a departure from the EU. Labour MPs have already talked about using the plan this way:

If the government’s Brexit plan did not fulfil… [their] conditions, Labour would try to impose these terms on the government by amending the bill. On Sky News a moment ago, asked what would happen if the government did not cooperate,… [Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary] said the government would face “further challenge” from Labour. He refused to elaborate on what this might mean.

In addition, it appears that the production of this Brexit plan isn’t dependent on any Supreme Court decision.  So we should assume that whatever happens there, the Government now has an option to whip out something from which an Article 50 Bill will emerge – even if it doesn’t need to. And if you think they can’t do this and the Referendum result was an instruction, without conditions, to leave the EU, then maybe you haven’t seen the definitions that were agreed on by the amendment that the Tories added to the motion.

Here is that amendment:

At end add ‘, consistently with the principles agreed without division by this House on 12 October; recognises that this House should respect the wishes of the United Kingdom as expressed in the referendum on 23 June; and further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017.’

In this statement it was proposed that the result of the EU referendum was a “wish” of the “United Kingdom” – and MPs duly voted for it. So, the result of the referendum, as far as “sovereign” Parliament is concerned, is not an instruction without conditions.  It is a mere expression of a desire. (And just what is the “United Kingdom” exactly? Shouldn’t the statement refer to the people?). Moreover, the statement proposed that the House of Commons “should respect” the referendum result. This isn’t the same as “must enforce” the result. And think about it. Why should the Commons have to enforce the result when, after all, the result is merely a desire. And consider the word “respect”. Respect is a state that can exist without agreement. So, the House of Commons can respect the EU referendum result without agreeing with what it implies. Respect for a position is a state that can exist without having to adopt that position. The House of Commons can respect the EU referendum result without adopting it.

Finally, there is the phrase “[this House] further calls on the Government to invoke Article 50 by 31 March 2017”. This is what everyone was excited about, but what for? There is no power of compulsion. The House isn’t forcing the Government to invoke Article 50 by March 31st, or even the next day – April Fools’ day – which would have been an entirely more appropriate date to supply. In any case, invoking Article 50 won’t be the same as leaving the EU if the way is now open – which it entirely is – to water it down.

The bottom line is that Article 50 is a trap whereby the British Government can bring about a legal quagmire and a state of living death in terms of EU membership. Article 50 is a huge red herring. What people should be looking for is the repealing of the 1972 European Communities Act, and there is only one party that has now announced a policy for doing it: UKIP. Well done Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Scottish independence to ruin UK’s war plans – hence a ‘no’ vote in the offing?

The appearance of certain opinion polls this week has caused much excitement in the lead up to the referendum on Scottish independence. All of a sudden it looks as if the campaign to break up the Union (that being waged by vote ‘yes’ for independence proponents) is within a nose of coming level on the finishing line. Naturally, people are wondering if it has the momentum to get in front for a tiny narrow victory. The prospect of the ‘yes’ result is a fascinating thing to consider in terms of what it would mean for people of the rest of the United Kingdom, especially when appreciated through the prism of real geopolitics – not the fantasy theatre that is portrayed in the corporate-media. For what an observer of these events needs to understand is that Scotland was allowed this referendum in order to feed it to Brussels. Victory for the ‘yes’ camp will lift that UK region of the EU which coincides with the country of Scotland out of the context of the United Kingdom – in other words, Scotland will be a wholly EU region, and an ultimate victim of that famous sense of victimhood engendered by the divide-and-conquer way in which Scotland has been ruled. As for the rest of the UK, the effect on it, in terms of political repercussions, must have been calculated as being minimal – in the context of the LibLabCon revolving party-in-office scheme, this is reasonable to assume. However, there is a new factor, UKIP, which has meant that all the well laid plans must have come undone to one degree or another – at any rate, clues to this certainly lay in the mixed messages that the corporate-media is propagating (see image below). In the current climate, David Cameron will find it very hard to justify himself to his party membership as the man who lost the Union, and it could mean that a 2015 general election that already was hard to predict becomes a completely too-slippery thing for the Establishment to maintain a grasp of.

scotland_mixed_messagesThe first thing to get to grips with is that Scottish independence is a desirable outcome for the British Government (in its broadest sense) because it is a step to delivering the UK fully into direct rule from Brussels. The Cameron government is executing the agenda that was also tasked the first fully Fascio-Marxist British vassal government – Blair’s Labour one of 1997. As soon as that government came to office, it more or less immediately started the wrecking ball swinging to create the conditions from whence Scottish independence would inevitably come. All at the same time, Labour introduced the legislation to create alternative power bases to Westminster in Scotland and Wales. Regional parliaments were also planned in England, at least one of which, London, was realised. In what might be called one of the greatest acts in the resistance of the occupation of the UK to date, the people of the North East rejected their own assembly, and the plan to split up the unitary political body of England suffered a serious setback.

Let us be clear, then: David Cameron didn’t agree to a referendum because he thought he could win it and therefore defeat the pressure coming from a SNP-led Scottish regional parliament – that pressure, remember, was coming from the apparatus installed by Blair. The conclusion one should make instead is that Cameron devised a vote because he wanted to bring the process begun by Blair to its fruition. If we are still not sure, then refer to the natural law regarding how corrupt government only uses referenda to legitimise something that it wants to do anyway. There isn’t a referendum on EU membership – because the government doesn’t want to act to withdraw Britain’s membership. There is a referendum on Scottish membership of the UK – because the government wants to end that union, and bring about a new direct relationship between Scotland and the EU.

If we are still not sure, then consider that, while the rest of the UK is presented with a worthless promise of a chance to vote in a plebiscite to leave the EU in 2017, all those concerned in the Scottish independence debate sell the EU as a positive, and use it as an attribute to their campaign. The ‘no’ camp has been frightening potential ‘yes’ voters with the potential ‘nightmare’ scenario of Scottish exclusion from the EU. The ‘yes’ campaign has been making sure to let people know that EU membership is something that Scotland can retain. Even if Scotland finds itself technically outside of the EU, it won’t be long before any technicality ceases to be an obstacle – and statements in the past from Barroso, the then President of the European Commission, that stimulated ‘fears’ of Scotland’s ejection should be measured by the man who made them; Barroso, of course, recently revealed and misrepresented the content of diplomatic discussions with the Russian President Putin. Barroso is a cut of scum above all the other filth.

Of course, fixing a date for a vote does not guarantee any intended result and Scottish independence always seemed like a remote eventuality, given the historical polls and anecdotal evidence. But a people under the full control of an expertly manipulative government which directs a supportive media in joined-up propaganda campaigns – and also directs the controlled opposition – will do exactly what the government wants it to do*. Surely the vote regarding membership of the Common Market in the 70s, is the case in point. Observers should not be surprised to see the opinion polls narrowing the gaps between the ‘no’ and ‘yes’ vote as a response to the televised debates; it should be of no surprise to find that the ‘leader’ of the controlled opposition to the will of the government (i.e. the LibLabCon comprised Better Together) is the uninspiring Alistair Darling – the man who was Chancellor in a very unpopular British government as it went into overt spasms of flopping and floundering, and the man who oversaw a descent into recession.

Without a doubt, when it decided to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, the Cameron regime was finishing the process of the regional hand over to the EU started by its Labour predecessor. And presumably the Cameron regime was encouraged by the calculations it must have made at the time which would have registered little risk of real damage. There would be no real repercussions for chancing the loss of, or even losing the Union. If it turned out that the Union would be broken up as a result of Cameron’s policies, and if Tory membership, who are generally particularly keen on the Union, wanted to punish Cameron, what could they do? Vote Labour, Lib Dems or not at all? The inevitable outcome would always be the LibLabCon, and the overall continuity of government policy would continue whatever the colour of the party in office. The real financier-corporate government of the UK would not suffer. In terms of personal consequence, an out of office Cameron would undoubtedly retire to the sort of pastures that Tony Blair has been plentifully rewarded with.

In fact, if the Union was lost, the Tories could just shrug it off as the democratic will of the Scottish people, ask not to be blamed for it, and ask to be respected for their political integrity. This is what Cameron appears to want to do – he has already indicated that he will not resign over Scottish independence. Indeed, Cameron could sell the state of affairs as having won a bonus (and this talking point is already being spouted by the state’s flagship propaganda mongers). All those lost Labour seats from Westminster due to Scottish independence – 40 as it currently stands – is, as the myth is being retailed, some kind of guarantee of Tory future victory in England. And it really needs to be understood that this sort of stuff speaks to the tribal Tories in the deep-country and suburban bubbles who don’t experience the devastation of the Tory cultural Marxism, and who are raised with an ‘I’m alright Jack’ mind-set, and who respond to ills in the wider society, provoked by that sort of middle-class guilt that is encouraged as being trendy, by throwing money at the charity industry – these people see politics in terms of winning or losing to Labour, and in terms of having a delusion of being empowered individually because of a visceral dedication to their political team. This is, at least, how the author appreciates the core Tory state of being – a state of stubborn loyalty to all the institutions even as the poison from inside seeps out to stain the whited-sepulchre exteriors. It is going to be interesting to see how these people react to something that upsets their simple appreciation of politics – namely to the consequence of the upstart UKIP benefitting from Cameron’s decision to break up the Union. The author expects a good deal of abandonment by this core support, and suspects that this was not a calculation that got factored in by Cameron et al at the start of the whole process.

Back in March 2013, when the Scottish referendum was announced, nobody could be entirely sure that UKIP would do as well as it did in the major elections of 2014. It is now pretty evident that the Tory planners, even at that time colluding with the state apparatus to conduct smear campaigns against UKIP, always thought that Farage’s party could be contained. These co-conspirators even had a psyop on standby to deal with any UKIP success, and after the re-election of a Tory at Newark, the Establishment was universally pronouncing UKIP as dead in the water. As it turned out, the defection of Douglas Carswell, ironically the architect of Tory Localism (the tool that Cameron’s regime would adopt to link local government directly with Brussels after regional hand-over became too much like an obvious blunt instrument of assault) has completely scuppered the Tories’ containment of UKIP through psychological manipulation. Now the Tories must be panicked about the confluence of two events: the independence of Scotland, and the UKIP star in the ascendency as a credible alternative for government – UKIP as a place for people to meet across the so-called political spectrum. The Tories are not guaranteed in England – the Tory core vote will not necessarily have a winning team, and this will be too disappointing. Scotland will have been sacrificed for nothing.

Given this possibility, trying to predict the outcome of a general election after Scottish independence is pointless. All that can be best-guessed at is that no party would have enough MPs for a majority government (that much would be true even before the loss of the Scottish contingent in Westminster). Even if the Tories did not suffer a collapse, and if Labour ruled with a minority government, one would have to wonder if any business could be got done in Parliament with a much enlarged UKIP holding everyone for ransom in return for a vote on EU-membership†, and a much depleted Lib Dem party. (As far as UKIP are concerned, putting a spanner in the LibLabCon works is, at this stage, as good as winning the election). But what if Cameron broke up the Union, and faced an abandonment of support from core voters – how large UKIP could be in that case is any one’s guess. And the larger UKIP was, the bigger that anti-Fascio-Marxist spanner would be. Also, UKIP would act as a centre of gravity for backbench opposition to any Labour government – especially on the very important issues like war. The anti-war UKIP has the potential to foil military intervention that the British Government has undoubtedly already planned for.

Here, then, is perhaps the reason why the Establishment would be looking to postpone the General Election if the Scots vote for independence (the rationale being given in the linked-to Guardian story is bogus). For it is quite feasible that after the 2015 election, given the circumstances just mentioned, Parliament at Westminster would never again be able to endorse a war such as the one waged on Iraq, or the intervention in Libya – both of which were sold on intelligence that can only be called lies. After 2015 the LibLabCon may never again be able to facilitate the objectives of its global financier corporate masters – and then one could ask the question, what good would it be?

The overall prospect for the UK, then, if Scotland votes to leave it, is one of Scotland tricked into the EU proper, but England slipping from the grip of the wider machine of control in which the EU is a cog, and politically in disarray in terms of its usefulness to the corporate global kleptocracy. For the self-entitled ruling class, the disadvantages will totally outweigh the benefits, and maybe this is why they won’t have the Scots vote ‘yes’ after all.

 

Update, 7th September 2014,  and additional author’s note:

A new poll has the ‘yes’ campaign in the lead. Alistair Darling had the following to say in response: “These polls can and must now serve as a wake-up call to anyone who thought the referendum was a foregone conclusion.” The British Government has made promises of a rearrangement in the relationship between London and Edinburgh in event of a ‘no’ vote – this change has been characterised as ‘finishing the job’ of devolution. The following is from the Guardian article linked to above:

A senior government minister close to the Better Together campaign said a pledge to set up a new Scottish conference or convention, after a no vote, was imminent… It is understood that there have been intensive cross-party talks in recent days to finalise the plans.

Arguably we are seeing the roll out of measures, sanctioned from the highest places evidently, to make certain that a ‘yes’ result is avoided.

*I failed to mention in the main body of this article that in the light of an historical lack of support for independence in Scotland, I consider the British Government capable of fixing this vote – it being of such great importance – and have made this observation in other places on the internet. If this rigging was to take place to obtain a ‘yes’ outcome, then I reasoned that we should expect to see the opinion polls closer to polling day framing expectations of such a result. Additionally, this cheating could only happen if the ‘noes’ carried by a small majority – turning a large one into a ‘yes’ victory would be problematic in terms of it being noticed.

† It is my belief that a referendum to exit the EU would not be won while the LibLabCon held office.

UKIP’s Newark vote and lessons from recent by-election history

According to the corporate-media, on Friday morning after the Newark by-election UKIP was a spent force. Of course, this triumphalism was only to be expected; the British Establishment wants the British People to believe that there is no solution or alternative to the status quo. The rule of war being applied is the one whereby fighting must be avoided if your army is not fit to do it, and victory should be gained psychologically instead. Likewise, the LibLabCon is not fit to fight because it cannot win most arguments on any point of policy from its alien culturally-Marxist, pro-EU, anti-British stance and attitude. Because it cannot execute a straight fight, it will try to convince its enemy in the field – UKIP -  to surrender through psychology, and the corporate-media is its tool.

So let it be understood that the corporate-media is like a microscopic man with a bull-horn. It’s like one of those microbial Whos of Dr Seuss directing the Elephant Horton. There are divisions of the corporate-media aimed at particular sorts of Briton; the Telegraph, for instance, is aimed at those living in 1970s-surburbia-bubble-fantasia. The Guardian is for people who would react against that, perhaps.

Through the mega-phone of the corporate-media, the Newark victory has been given more resonance because the Tories have not won a by-election while in office since 1989 when William Hague scraped in at Richmond (what a blinding act of oblivious cruelty that was – a gift to the world for which many Syrians, Libyans and Ukranians must be very grateful). The Tories, you see, never win by-elections while in office; thus is Newark such an extraordinary and rare event (UKIP’s ‘loss’ is inversely proportional). However, when you look at those intervening losing by-election results – and in particular the ones that have percentage share swaps of the like we saw in Newark where UKIP gained 22% of the vote – there is an interesting pattern.

From 1990 to 1993, it appears that voters merely swapped across from the Tories to the Lib Dems. Given that it was generally considered that Labour were wild and unelectable, this was surely the discouraged Tory vote trying out a new home with a tiny and safe step to the (perceived) Left. It was the Protest Vote – the same that UKIP’s success is wrongly and optimistically attributed to  these days. Come 1994, and there was a bigger act of inhumanity to Man than that of the election of William Hague; Tony Blair became Labour Party leader. Incredible as it may now seem, Corporate-fascist Labour became a plausible destination for voters fed up with the Tories. In Dudley West that year, the percentage swap went straight from the Tories to Blair’s altered Labour Party-nouveau. But the most interesting result was in 1995 and in Littleborough and Saddleworth. The Lib Dems won the seat, but the switch-across went to Labour; Phil Woolas added 14.9% to the previous tally. When the electoral boundaries were later changed, Woolas would be elected as MP for Oldham East and Saddleworth in the 1997 General Election.

Thereafter the biggest swap around in the by-elections lost by the Tories happened in South East Staffordshire in 1996, with a 22% gain for Labour, and then in Wirral South in 1997, with an 18% gain for Blair’s party.

Clearly, what had happened is that the Labour Party had achieved some credibility as a prospective governing party under Blair (albeit, as it would turn out, through outright deception), that the Lib Dems had not been able to acquire for themselves, and became the party of destination for voters deserting the Tories. The by-election of 1995 was a missing-link moment where despite a big swing to Labour, the base support had not already been present in the constituency to build upon. It perhaps needs to be suggested that this is what happened to UKIP at Newark on Thursday night. Furthermore, as electoral history also shows us, when UKIP repeat that 20+ percentage increase performance in places where it has previously been able to create a foundation, or where there is a much smaller starting LibLabCon majority beyond which the swing will convey them, the party will take the seat. More crucially, that history also suggests that to become a party of power, UKIP has to become perceived in the generally politically-obtuse masses as the party to which people can swap to without perturbing any of the psychological constructions regarding party-affiliation that they may possess (these perhaps being more significant than actual policies in many cases). The good news is that UKIP is already doing this, and in a way that is more dynamic than the way Labour was able to win voters from a post-Thatcher Tory Party. UKIP appeals to people supposedly ensconced across the political spectrum (exposing the divide and conquer left/right paradigm into the bargain).

Therefore, in stark contrast to the triumphant corporate-media which heralded UKIP’s demise on Friday morning, and the cock-a-doodling Grant Shapps who single-handedly angered, and motivated millions with his Orwellian statements about gaining votes signifying a going backwards, the result in Newark was in fact a sign post to a fantastic UKIP future. There is only one proviso, however; any sign post that points to a destination represents a distance to traverse, and that means hard work (in one form or another). In fact, there may have been a sense in any disappointment that UKIP supporters or members may have had on Friday morning that there was still so much hard work to do after all the travail so far expended; but look at it in perspective: UKIP only wants to free the country from a cartel who have had a death-lock stranglehold for over a hundred years. Of course it is going to take a lot of work.

Are soaring Coalition parties about to crash on landing at Eastleigh?

According to conventional wisdom the upcoming Eastleigh by-election is a close-run two-horse race between the partners in the Coalition Government – and two opinion polls in the last month seem to confirm this. Much is made, in the slavish corporate-media – and with many a flourish – about the fake fall-out between the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. However, in the detail of the opinion poll conducted by Lord Ashcroft, the data indicated a very large percentage of undecided voters who could enable UKIP to reel in the Establishment parties should they decide to lodge a protest vote (or even move their permanent support to the party). The performance of UKIP in last year’s Corby by-election in relation to another Lord Ashcroft poll conducted there – which also showed similar numbers of respondents who didn’t know who they would vote for, or “don’t knows” – was spectacularly well above expectations. The same could very well happen again in Eastleigh, and with dramatic effects.

Earlier this month Lord Ashcroft’s polling company conducted a poll of the voting intentions of the people of Eastleigh, and the headline figures that were published were as follows:

Conservative 34%, Labour 19%, Liberal Democrat 31%, Other parties 16% (UKIP 13%).

These figures were generated after some considerable manipulation. In the unweighted, basic responses, only 51% of respondents named a party; the rest either didn’t know for whom they would vote (29%), refused to answer (8%), or stated a preference for not voting (12%). In this particular data set, the raw poll results actually looked very different to the headline figures, and clearly demonstrated the significance of those undecided votes:

Conservative 15%, Labour 11%, Liberal Democrat 17%, UKIP 6%, Greens 1%.

As the author tirelessly tries to point out, the purpose of opinion polls is to project the status quo into the future by astonishing acts of statistical manipulation that shape the perception of the consumer of the poll and cause a belief that LibLabCon dominance is inevitable. But once again, as can be clearly seen here, the stated level of what is presented as committed support for all the Establishment parties in the headlines is very different indeed from the raw data.

Under the calm exterior of the corporate-media, which has been presenting the Eastleigh by-election as a formality, there is recognition of the raw data reality, and the prospect of the “don’t knows” turning to UKIP. In the Guardian, there was guarded allowance for the possibility of a shock result, with the key revelatory indicator words being “most bets” and “off”:

Let’s be absolutely clear, as ever, that the consensus may be wrong. In the national opinion polls that have reported this week, the Lib Dems are on 12% or less, which means they are at least 12 points down on the 24% they scored across Britain in 2010. In the same national polls, Labour is at least eight points up on 2010 and the Tories at least five points down. And one national poll has Ukip on 14%. If opinion shifts on that scale were reflected at Eastleigh, and especially if there were any sort of a late surge towards one of the challengers, most bets would be off. And a lot can happen in a week.

In the Independent, there was some more clarification. The “challengers” mentioned in the Guardian piece weren’t going to be Labour:

Voters said they saw the contest as a Tory and Lib Dem fight with the protest vote was going not to Labour but to Ukip.

And that is the real wild card in this election. Driving around Eastleigh Ukip looks to have the second largest number of campaign posters up in gardens and windows and growing support from the ’none of the above’ protest vote that used to benefit the Lib Dems in by-elections.

There is something in the idea that UKIP would benefit from people abandoning the Lib Dems. In the last week alone, Lib Dem controlled Eastleigh council bitterly disappointed many people by giving the go ahead for hundreds of new houses in rural parts of the borough (with UKIP being the only party who are opposed to building to accomodate immigration). A former Liberal Democrat mayor even defected to UKIP. Survation’s opinion poll of 10th February showed the switching of allegiance to UKIP being greater from the Lib Dems than from the Tories. Indeed, a fight between the Lib Dems and UKIP might benefit the Tories, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. In what is being called an embarrassment when the corporate-media bothers to cover it, when Boris Johnson came to town looking for that 15% who would definitely vote Tory, he couldn’t find them (see link above).

The only question that remains to be asked is what the extent could be of the move in support to UKIP? It’s hardly scientific, but the results of, and the opinion polling approaching the Corby by-election could be examined to obtain a general idea; Corby was also subject to a Lord Ashcroft poll. As this site discovered at the time, it was in the detail of the Lord Ashcroft poll for Corby where a more representative figure could be found in terms of the actual by-election result. Could the equivalent data for Eastleigh similarly point to something more akin to what could be expected in the by-election there?

The data that needs to be looked at in this context is the percentages after the “don’t knows” and other non-responses have been taken out; for Eastleigh, this gives these figures (which could be weighted with a factor representing certainty to vote):

Conservative 33%, Labour 21%, Liberal Democrat 29%, UKIP 15%.

The “don’t knows” for Eastleigh are of a similar percentage as they were at Corby (27%) where UKIP’s actual result saw an improvement of 133% upon the relevant polled figure. Applying the same to Eastleigh, UKIP could be on course for 20% of the vote, which would be a victory whatever else happened. And if the trend is repeated in Eastleigh as it was in Corby, whereby support for the other three patries falls off in the translation between this raw/semi-processed data and the headline figures, then UKIP could very well beat Labour – and Survation has predicted as much (see link above). Moreover, UKIP could move very close – within single digits – to the Liberal Democrats and the Tories, and if drop off of support for those two parties has accelerated since Corby, things could get very interesting indeed.

Establishment closes ranks over elite paedophile-ring suspicions?

In an appearance on ITV’s This Morning programme, David Cameron yesterday suggested that the Establishment was going to stifle investigation into revelations generally to do with abuse of children in care, and complicity to it, by members of the ruling class and their high-profile victim-suppliers. Although Cameron made an appeal for people with accusations regarding paedophilic predation to go to police and to let official commissions come to conclusions, he also deployed a cynical trick of deflection by equating a desire to bring dangerous criminals to justice as an act of homophobia. There soon after followed many statements of support for Cameron’s position from politicians and figures in the corporate-media, as well as denunciation of the TV show host, Phillip Schofield, who had, after qualifying his action with the words “there could have been a paedophile ring amongst the elite of Great Britain”, presented Cameron with a list of suspects.

There could be no other interpretation of the well-meaning Phillip Schofield’s so-called “confrontation” with David Cameron; it should be clear to all that the concern was not about embarrassing a man who may well himself owe a debt of thanks for his career to some of the people on “Schofield’s List”. The internet is awash with allegations, based on witness statements, about a paedophile ring that manipulates politics and corporate-media output to remain in a position to abuse their power, and this situation is the result of the perception that the Establishment is not interested in sorting the truth from the rumour.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman told a media briefing: “If they have got allegations, if they have evidence, they should hand it to the police. We should not have people throwing allegations around and trial by Twitter”. Putting aside the issue of possible police complicity with Establishment paedophile rings, such a statement should be seen as a criticism of the free, unfiltered flow of information that passes between people as hearsay, and even did so by word of mouth before the digital age. Such information has always required individual powers of critique to weigh it (a skill which the British Marxist State is trying to disabuse Britons of). Most people, both then and now, acting in accordance with inherent notions about not making false witness, would be able to see that some incriminating gossip was not proof enough to go to the authorities. However, this did and does not mean that the information will stop circulating.

All this, it seems, is elemental to the gist of Schofield’s complaint, which was this: the investigation into what could be an incredibly significant crime syndicate is being diluted; he referred to multiple enquiries, but there is also the issue of any enquiry’s remit – something that he didn’t mention but which is even more important for obtaining full transparency. Look at this list, said Schofield, and implied that here was the never-ending gossip that is the inevitable result of a culture of cover-up.

Now, in the space of 24 hours, Phillip Schofield has been forced to issue an apology, is defending and distancing himself from being “part of any kind of witch hunt”, has been suspiciously condemned by barnacle-covered fixtures of the British corporate-media and by politicians of every LibLabCon stripe, and a message has been sent to all who are paying attention.

Cameron clearly gave the signal for what was the Establishment’s own ambush to be executed:

Look Phillip, I think Phillip this is really important. There is a danger if we are not careful, that this can turn into a sort of witch-hunt, particularly against people who are gay.

I’m worried about the sort of thing you are doing right now…. giving me a list of names you have taken off the internet.

The motive clearly was to cow Schofield’s viewers into a distrust of extra-corporate-media sources using the principle of control through political correctness. Soon, others were taking Cameron’s lead.

The ludicrous Richard Littlejohn made a surprisingly energetic effort to ridicule the idea that a paedophile ring could exist at the heart of the Establishment, labelling Labour MP, Tom Watson, – a politician who appears to be very genuine in his desire to obtain justice for the victims of the worst sort of crime – as the “Noncefinder General”; the allusion is of course to a chief witch hunter, and a particularly grimy one. Littlejohn was also guilty of taking up the other cynical ploy that is being utilised to parry enquiry, which is making the issue all about party politics. While simultaneously bashing conspiracy websites, he insisted that “the race is on to claim a Tory scalp; the agenda apparently to smear everyone in the Conservative Party as a child molester — or at least guilty of covering up child molesting”.

Unfortunately for Littlejohn, the evidence that his is a shameful effort at diversion is already in the pudding; some of the names that are circulating are those of Labour politicians and therefore there is no question of political motivation driving the online discussions.

Other reacting journalists were Jonathan Dimbleby, a fellow presenter of Philip Schofield, who described his behaviour as “cretinous”. On Thursday night’s edition of Newsnight, the charge was repeated that interest in bringing paedophiles to justice was a “witch hunt”. Telegraph blogger, Iain Martin, demanded that Schofield be sacked. In his case, a very interesting development occurred whereby the comments section beneath the pertinent blog post was closed down only after 15 comments, which indicates that he had drawn some fierce opposition from readers.

MPs also got involved to attack Phillip Schofield. Rob Wilson, the Conservative MP for Reading East, condemned ITV and wrote to Ed Richards, the boss of broadcasting watchdog, Ofcom, to ask if he will be investigating whether or not ITV was in compliance with section 7 (“Fairness”) of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code. Policing Minister Damian Green said Mr Schofield’s intervention was a “pretty tasteless and silly stunt” - a meme first introduced by a Downing Street spokesman. London Mayor Boris Johnson branded Schofield’s presentation as a “rum piece of journalism”, with Labour’s Chuka Umunna declaring that it was “foolish and irresponsible”.

From a position of awareness of the already demonstrable crookedness of the British Establishment (based on how it deceives and manipulates to make war in order to make itself wealthy, and how it deceives and manipulates to sell off the sovereignty and liberty of the British People), there should be no surprise at what appears to be a closing of ranks to try and control suspicions of organised horrific abuse by members of the British elite. In other words, if it ever came out that the British ruling class ran a paedophile ring that minions in the corporate-media covered up and even participated in themselves, it would not be new evidence that the British ruling class is a clan of gangsters. As previously stated, this fact can already be demonstrated, and it only takes a willingness to observe in order to be able to see it. Following on from this, then, it should not be too hard for any person who is an awakened observer to understand that the controller of a system of official enquiry can abuse it in a way that will dispel allegations, and allow perpetrators to get away scot free. If the controllers are gangsters, then any justice they say that they are obtaining is a sham.

So, although the current lesson to awakened observers is of the powerlessness, for the time being, of people who are really concerned about unscarred human lives, and who are revolted by abuses of excess inflicted by the self-entitled on innocents, this won’t always be the case, and exercises like Phillip Schofield’s will be very valuable at a later time. For what has happened in the aftermath of this event is that certain people have seemingly aligned themselves for and against, and those against have been facetious and have relied on group-think or used verbal gimmickry when presented with the possibility that there is a terribly dangerous affliction upon society.

Tories to wangle multi-option EU referendum stitch-up as UKIP catches up in polls

great_cast_ironoLast week, when David Cameron was interpreted by corporate-media as giving a hint that Britons would be allowed some form of referendum on the EU if the Tories were elected in 2015, many sceptical observers must have thought that, given his already-broken “cast-iron guarantee”, he was acting with breathtaking and offensive temerity. However, they might not have realised that Cameron has probably taken the risk of their response into consideration as he, with the help of his so-called eurosceptic MPs playing fake opposition to him, begins another scheme of deception and bamboozlement against the potential Tory-voting part of the electorate in order to stem their increasingly likely mass-desertion by 2015.

For perhaps the first time ever, an opinion polling company has produced the results of a survey of political party support amongst a section of the British electorate where the raw data, after minimal adjustment,  more or less constitutes the headline figures. Usually, polling companies manipulate their survey data to make it “representative” of the electorate as a whole, but there is no standard algorithm across the polling industry, and many critics believe that weighting gives one of many opportunities for polling companies to distort their findings for the purposes of creating an illusion of LibLabCon inevitability.

The Survation poll in question was published 23rd September, and the headline figures were as follows: Conservative, 29%; Labour, 41%; Liberal Democrats, 10%; UKIP, 12%. The most striking thing about this information is the mere 17 percentage point difference between UKIP and the Conservative Party; this is the same kind of minor chasm that UKIP has already traversed to overtake the Lib Dems. Not surprisingly, the poll received only a bare mention by the Establishment gatekeepers of polling interpretation.

Nonetheless, Conservative Party planners are now showing signs that they are extremely concerned about the replacement of their party by UKIP as the second biggest in the UK as erstwhile Tory voters realise that David Cameron is not just an aberration which the backbench of the party is too useless to make step down as an unrepresentative leader, but a deliberate outcome of a wholesale and furtive change in the identity of the parliamentary party which, in these last few years, has become a cog in the works of the new British Marxist state.

David Cameron’s laughable “strongest hint yet” about an EU referendum is one of these signs of desperation, and the party strategists must have realised that they risked making Cameron look ludicrous given his assurance in 2007 that British people would have a vote on the Lisbon Treaty – a version of the constitution of the EU which was contrived in part to facilitate dissembling UK politicians as they clumsily attempted to deceive Britons into thinking that there was no plan for a European superstate. However, despite the possibility of making some voters permanently incredulous about the honourableness of David Cameron, the Tory Party strategy is clearly designed to win (by employment of their low cunning) last minute wider support before the 2015 election.

The Daily Mail writer of the above linked-to article took Cameron’s stated support for the EU and a public personal preference for the British to be ruled from Brussels to mean that any referendum “may not include an option for Britain to leave.” This is very likely; indeed, even UKIP have publically stated a suspicion that the referendum will entail a programme of hoodwinking to get the result desired by the Establishment parties: British EU membership maintained. Coinciding with the Labour Party’s own hinting at a plebiscite in some far off distant future, Nigel Farage warned the “political elite” that “muddying the waters, writing promissory notes about what might happen in 10 years’ time, is no longer acceptable.”

In some quarters it is anticipated that the initial form of the referendum, to be announced by the incumbent government, will be along the lines of asking how to define Britain’s relationship with the EU, or how to limit (on the face of it at least – the horse has long left the stable) the EU in its ambitions as a unified country. At some point just before the 2015 election, however, the so-called Tory eurosceptics will complain and stage a campaign about the failings of the planned referendum format, will be seen to win a concession from David Cameron for an option to leave the EU to be included on the ballot paper, and thus, in a timely fashion, bolster support for a party that, at least as far as the Tory High Command hope, will be seen to represent national interests.

The dynamic between Conservative Head Office and Tory backbenchers has already been put into motion. Happy to quote the UKIP leader in the context of Labour recognition for the necessity of a poll, the Daily Mail made sure that it only collected fighting-talk from Tory MP and chief judas-goat, Douglas Carswell, in the body of its Cameron article:

Mr Carswell said: “It is all very well for the Prime Minister to talk about what he may or may not do after the next election but unless we get on and give people a vote in an in/out referendum we will see many more Conservative voters desert us before the next election.

“It would be entirely bogus if he offers the British people a referendum that doesn’t include an option to leave the EU.”

The upshot will be the delivery of another piece of deception. The British Government will have been seen to address the constitutional needs of the British people who, being grateful for the opportunity to have a chance to vote on EU membership, may not oppose the fact that the referendum will have been watered down to incorporate three or more choices; in such a referendum, depending on what is asked and how it is phrased, the facility for the electorate to deliver a clear instruction to leave the EU will be severely compromised.

As such, many observers realise that the only way to ensure a departure from the EU is for the electorate to vote for a party, in elections, that overtly advocates it as policy. In this light, talk of UKIP doing a deal with the Tory Party – a set of people that are clearly pro-EU, and evidently incorrigible serial fraudsters – that would overly benefit the latter at the 2015 election, would be thereafter relentlessly damaging for the Withdrawalist party. UKIP would be far more powerful in terms of garnering leverage towards its ultimate aim of withdrawal from the EU if it did not make deals with Establishment parties, whether they be Labour or the Conservatives, until it had its own representation in the House of Commons – although there is a case for forcing some kind of deal for an “in/out” referendum as soon as possible given the current rate of the EU takeover and invasion of Britain.

It should be noted that chatter about UKIP election pacts is usually instigated by the Establishment which understands how to undermine UKIP in terms of alienating its support. An example of the misrepresentation comes from the aforementioned Daily Mail piece which claimed that “the UK Independent Party has offered to form an electoral pact and not challenge Eurosceptic Tory MPs at the 2015 election, but only if Mr Cameron commit to a referendum ‘in blood’”.  In fact, Farage referenced the “cast-iron guarantee” in order to mock Cameron’s fitness to keep a promise, and the “offer” of a pact seemed more mischievously intentioned, and rather like an invitation for the Conservative Party to overthrow Cameron – who is clearly going to offer an “in/out” referendum in the same way as pigs are ever going to fly – in order to even get to the first stage of an agreement; as the Mail reported at the time: UKIP was “prepared to enter negotiations over electoral tactics with any Tory leader who offered the public an  in-out nationwide vote”.