Britain's Brown wants new global financial order

Current system is clearly not working anymore, time for something different..

I realise the NWO stuff is a hot button topic, but we are collectively in the crap here and we need to fix it.

Heres a little more of that speech, I thought this was our current problem not ones that have been sorted or we are being helped with - if we are getting help, what form is it in, or am i just unaware?

The immediate priority was to fairly help people cope with difficult times, he said, adding that in the United Kingdom, the Government was supporting people with the costs of gas and electricity, supporting homeowners, and helping people acquire the skills for jobs.

www.un.org...

[edit on 27-9-2008 by MCoG1980]

on the Blair / Thatcher statement, I think you've only got to look at their post government employment to work some things out, Mrs Thatcher was given high paid, little work directorships of BRITISH companies. Now look at Blair, all his token highly paid jobs are for AMERICAN companies. Now I'd like you all to think what that means and to who's benefit these prime ministers were working for. At the time of the Thatcher government I was strongly opposed to her and her policies BUT she broke the stranglehold of the unions and put the economy on a strong footing for Blair and Brown to come in and destroy. sorry I try not to get into political arguments because I get too wound up.

edited for more clarity

[edit on 27-9-2008 by yellowbeard]

Originally posted by yellowbeard
on the Blair / Thatcher statement, I think you've only got to look at their post government employment to work some things out, Mrs Thatcher was given high paid, little work directorships of BRITISH companies. Now look at Blair, all his token highly paid jobs are for AMERICAN companies. Now I'd like you all to think what that means and to who's benefit these prime ministers were working for. At the time of the Thatcher government I was strongly opposed to her and her policies BUT she broke the stranglehold of the unions and put the economy on a strong footing for Blair and Brown to come in and destroy. sorry I try not to get into political arguments because I get too wound up.

edited for more clarity

[edit on 27-9-2008 by yellowbeard]

I'm not particularly fond of Thatcher and I'm certainly not a Conservative but that's a fair point - although I'm wondering how British some of these companies might have been given the Byzantine paths that lead to true ownership.

That said, your point does stands. I'm always particularly interested where any 'name' politician goes after office, it's hardly co-incidental that so many of them go to directorships of firms they were meant to be objectively dealing with when politicians. As for Blair, Muslim comments about the West waging a 'holy war' against them, take on a new light when you see Blair now teaching "faith and globalisation" at a major America university.

reply to post by Merriman Weir


I'm not a supporter of ANY of the political parties in Britain, the only completely fair system I can think of is to completely randomly select 646 (the amount of M.P.'s we have) people from the general public, just like jury service, and they select a leader. Then half of those members should be replaced every two years to give continuity of governance. With this system, you'd get a good cross section of society (some good, some not so good) including pensioners, who often know a lot and younger men and women with spirit and courage of their convictions BUT parliament wouldn't be full of lawyers and business people who are only out for themselves. Just my thoughts on the matter, but I'm no political expert.

Why does the UK even need 646 MP's??? anyway when they're ruled under the EU?

New global finiancial order and superbanks starting to appear thanks to recent worldwide events hmmmmmmm things are going to get interesting, I'm sure there's alot of people out there thinking some of the NWO claims don't sound as crazy as they did anymore.

reply to post by yellowbeard


I have often thought that and I believe I saw this particular form of Government in an Isacc Asimov book years ago. Some colonists on a new world far away randomly chose their leaders by a lottery. It was said it was the only way of guaranteeing that they would serve the people and not have vested interests.

But, Sci-Fi aside, the fairest system would be some form of proportional representation, like on the continent. While it tends to lead to coalition Governments, those in power know they hang by a thread and tend to much more likely to serve those who elected them.

In our system, you could have a constituency of 30,001 people, and only 10,001 have to vote for one candidate and he wins. The other 20,000 could be spilt between a few candidates, but they get ignored as the one who polled the most won.

In our system, in 2005, Labour polled only 37% of the popular vote with the Tories on 35%. Looking at the make up of Parliament you wouldn't know it, as Labour have a massive majority, all down to the "first past the post" system we have.

Another thing that irks me is Brown going on about how he has "led the economy for 10 years" and that Labour brought about the "boom".

What he doesn't tell you is that the UK was already well recovered by 1997, after the last recession, thanks to Tory policies and Labour inherited a massive budget surplus.

Now, thanks to uncontrolled spending, we have turned a £10 Billion surplus into a £20 Billion deficit. The treasury now pays £27 Billion a year ON INTEREST PAYMENTS ALONE for the money we now owe due to unfettered Labour spending on NHS target managers, paying the lazy to not work and housing hordes of people from other countries that offer nothing in return.

Yes, I went there. I touched on the immigrant issue. You can't sweep it under the rug for ever with shouts of "racism". It's a real issue that needs addressing and ask any man in the street on his opinion and you'll fiond it differs markedly from the Government line of "multiculturalism".

reply to post by SR


We're not "ruled" under anybody.

One could say why does California or Colorado need a State legislature or Governor when they're "ruled under Washington", or why does Saxony and Bavria have their own parliaments when they're part of Germany?

[edit on 27/9/08 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
In our system, in 2005, Labour polled only 37% of the popular vote with the Tories on 35%. Looking at the make up of Parliament you wouldn't know it, as Labour have a massive majority, all down to the "first past the post" system we have.

As well the 'first past the post' problems, there's also the 'West Lothian/Scottish problem' where Scottish constituency representing MPs could vote on matters concerning England and Wales, but English and Welsh MPs couldn't vote on Scottish matters.

The 'English problem' is similar in that an MP with a position that governs solely English matters aren't allowed to have a constituency in England. Also that the House of Lords can influence English legislation but not any of the devolved parliaments.

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND
I am just sadden that the Queen doesn't put this idiot in his place, by bringing down the government...

The Queen/Royal Family are part of all this one world, Elitist BS nonesense

Originally posted by dodgygeeza

Wow, the first steps.

The first steps to the new world order, being announced our very own unelected moron. His choice of words are kind of scary.

Did anyone else notice this??

It's finally happening. The parts are all falling into place.

Sorry if this has been already been posted.




biz.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 26-9-2008 by dodgygeeza]

I heard it too man.

From the mouths of puppets!

I'm sick of hearing of his 'global family' mentality and 'Gordon knows best' attitude. From an idiot who plundered the pensions of the UK and flogged all the gold at rock-bottom prices he really is a fckwit of the highest order !

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by yellowbeard

 

I have often thought that and I believe I saw this particular form of Government in an Isacc Asimov book years ago. Some colonists on a new world far away randomly chose their leaders by a lottery. It was said it was the only way of guaranteeing that they would serve the people and not have vested interests.

But, Sci-Fi aside, the fairest system would be some form of proportional representation, like on the continent. While it tends to lead to coalition Governments, those in power know they hang by a thread and tend to much more likely to serve those who elected them.

In our system, you could have a constituency of 30,001 people, and only 10,001 have to vote for one candidate and he wins. The other 20,000 could be spilt between a few candidates, but they get ignored as the one who polled the most won.

In our system, in 2005, Labour polled only 37% of the popular vote with the Tories on 35%. Looking at the make up of Parliament you wouldn't know it, as Labour have a massive majority, all down to the "first past the post" system we have.

Another thing that irks me is Brown going on about how he has "led the economy for 10 years" and that Labour brought about the "boom".

What he doesn't tell you is that the UK was already well recovered by 1997, after the last recession, thanks to Tory policies and Labour inherited a massive budget surplus.

Now, thanks to uncontrolled spending, we have turned a £10 Billion surplus into a £20 Billion deficit. The treasury now pays £27 Billion a year ON INTEREST PAYMENTS ALONE for the money we now owe due to unfettered Labour spending on NHS target managers, paying the lazy to not work and housing hordes of people from other countries that offer nothing in return.

Yes, I went there. I touched on the immigrant issue. You can't sweep it under the rug for ever with shouts of "racism". It's a real issue that needs addressing and ask any man in the street on his opinion and you'll fiond it differs markedly from the Government line of "multiculturalism".

Yes mate you are on the button there.
Every time I hear some line about Brown being the master of money I soon set him straight!

Part of me actually feels sorry for David Cameron if he wins the next election.
He and his team will have an unholy mess and ruin of a country to fix.

reply to post by A55A551N


I hope that is not what is being reported in the amrica, , He Hated Tony Blair and vice versa. He was going to be fired by Tony Blair because he challenged everthing he did. But Tony always stopped the Mp's in their tracks.

The only reason that He is was not fired, and Blair Quit is because he had some VERY seroius Dirt on Tony Blair.

We never Voted Him in, no-one would have, if it was up to tony he would have called an Re-elction.

Both money grabbing Puppets though.

reply to post by A55A551N
Absolutely and David Icke predicted this a decade ago.

reply to post by monkeybus


I heard from a few MPs that Brown is often likened to Stalin. I can see the connection. If they did have "Dirt" on Blair, that only shows how screwed this country is when our leader resorts to blackmail.

Originally posted by WatchRider
From an idiot who plundered the pensions of the UK and flogged all the gold at rock-bottom prices...

I doubt it was mere idiocy. More like part of the plan.

Philip Hammond, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "Gordon Brown's sale of our gold reserves at the bottom of the market was an unmitigated disaster. This spectacular display of economic incompetence has left taxpayers nursing an estimated loss of nearly £4bn. "If the prime minister can't be trusted to manage our gold reserves, how can we trust him to run a British bank?" he asked.

Fool's gold for Brown? Criticism mounts over sale of precious metal Guardian, March 5 2008.

The £4bn loss was based upon the 250% increase in value of gold since the sale, but in reality half of Britain's reserves of the precious metal were exchanged for fiat currency bonds that may prove worth no more than the paper they're printed on.

Cameron proposes new Bank powers

Asking which political party or which nation is behind this misses the point that the power is vested in those who control the money. That power transcends national and political boundaries.

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
reply to post by monkeybus

 

I heard from a few MPs that Brown is often likened to Stalin. I can see the connection. If they did have "Dirt" on Blair, that only shows how screwed this country is when our leader resorts to blackmail.

I don't know whether you're familar with the paper 'Private Eye', but Brown is depicted as a Stalinesque character in that. Blair was depicted through a pastiche of Parish newsletter whereas Brown writes Soviet-style party messages from the 'Supreme Leader' to the Comrades of Britain.

Love private eye.

Of course we need a global financial regulatory organisation, thats the next logical step of having a more inter dependant global economy.

Brown said this the other day, he also said that hed been trying to persuade people to do this for YEARS, yet the idea was always rejected. Doesnt seem like all these reptillians are singing from the same hymn sheet, otherwise we'd have had this years ago.

Personally i think wed all be better off living in mud huts. But if your going to build the beast, you need strings to control it.

Goodbye dollar, goodbye pound, hello amereo, hello euro.

reply to post by Man_Versus_AntiMan


Remember david icke's formula. Problem, reaction, sollution. Brown and the labour party have been pushing for the uk to join the euro for years, but it has been rejected. so what do they do? they cause a problem, an economic crysis, and now they say they want a more centralised economy and we will accept because they say it will solve our problems. It's the same in america, soon mexico, canada and usa will scrap their currency and use the amereo to get out of the collapse. We need to understand that the economic collapse is deliberate in order to create a "solution" that the people will accept because they are being tricked into thinking it will benefit them.