CONSERVATIVES WIN... UK Election...

We have been stiched up. again we will have an unelected Leader.
You should have seen it coming.

He will not be chosen by the voters, but by the politicans.

I may not support the Conservatives. But they won. They should be in Power.

Instead we have the two losers in this election making deals, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. This does not happen anywhere else. I wonder what the PoTUS and other countries think of us right now.

We have no outside opinion in our papers over here, nor on the news.
Most of them are pushing it as if it is completly normal, for a democratic country to have yet another unelected leader. especially the BBC.

I can see only one way out of this. Another general election. Now we have seen what will happen with a hung parliment, the votes will be very very different.

If we dont get this, then we MUST protest. I dont want violence in them. but it is often unavoidable. There is going to be pockets of chaos around the country. People are already Painting their banners. and donning their balaclavas. This is not democracy!


[edit on 11-5-2010 by MR BOB]

reply to post by Freeborn



If you want to delve into Conservative - ROTHSCHILD relations, check out the current dirt on ''Newly'' elected millionaire MP Zac Goldsmith. (He's the son of the late financier Sir James Goldsmith and socialite Lady Annabel Vane-Tempest-Stewart.)

Hes recently split up with his wife in a divorce proceding that lasted 30 seconds.

The divorce papers never mentiond the name of the woman he had an affair with, but the break up comes amid reports he spent time with heiress Alice Rothschild at his familys villa in Spain.
Also, Alice is the sister of Kate Rothschild, who is married to Zac Goldsmiths brother Ben.

Goldsmith is now MP for Richmond Park, South West London.


The storys on page 15 of Todays (11/05/2010) Daily Mirror.

Quite amusing.
Money goes to money.

Maybe its worthy of a Thread since theres a lot of people who debate about the Rothschild family..

reply to post by MR BOB


Well said MR BOB, all so true, so very true.

Is it just me, but 'I predict a riot' as the Kaiser Chiefs sang... I am not sure that I can accept a Banana Republic government elbowing their way back into power and I'm too old to be swinging a pick-axe handle.

This cannot be allowed to happen!

reply to post by MR BOB


With Brown, the Liberal Democrates made it clear that if they where to be in a Hung parliament coalition with Labour before the results of the election, Clegg said he wouldnt work with Gordon Brown.

reply to post by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire


As you say The Goldsmiths have inter-married into The Rotschilds and The Guiness clan.

They have links with Jewish financial families going back a long time and indeed their ancestors, The Goldschmidts were friends, neighbours and fellow merchant bankers with The Rotschilds as far back as Frankfurt in the 16th Century.

The ties that bind all these families are long and complex.

reply to post by MR BOB


Don't panic, looks like Labour have finally thrown in the towel. Brown is litterally packing his bags and the Conservatives and Lib dems are putting the finishing touches to their agreement now.

We'll have a new Government this time tomorrow and the dismal days of Labours 13 year social experiment will be almost over.

reply to post by 2usermi5


Why are you spamming every thread with this drivel?

How is it relevant to the topic?

reply to post by Freeborn


Well he's Prime Minster now, so I hope you're wrong, but you never know. I guess time will tell. As for the Rothschilds, they have their mucky paws on all the main parties, especially people like George Osborne & Peter Mandelson, but what's new. Since we are talking conspiracy, at the end of the day it's the Rothschilds we are really voting for, when voting for the three main parties. When & if we get electoral reform, that may change, but somehow I doubt it.

Peter Mandelson and Nat Rothschild's long-lasting friendship.
www.telegraph.co.uk... -lasting-friendship.html

George Osborne warned: 'stop rubbishing' Rothschild or you're finished.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

I've hated Gordon Brown & New Labour for 13 years, so it'll be refreshing to hate someone else for a change.

I've just been watching the news on BBC1 and according to a Lib Dem MP, negotiations with New Labour didn't get anywhere as Gordon Brown wouldn't compromise on anything, including electroral reform, which doesn't surprise me at all. When speaking to the media, he's always telling the electorate what they want to hear, but behind closed doors he's doing the complete opposite.


[edit on 11-5-2010 by kindred]

Originally posted by kindred
reply to post by Freeborn

 

Since we are talking conspiracy, at the end of the day it's the Rothschilds we are really voting for, when voting for the three main parties. When & if we get electoral reform, that may change, but somehow I doubt it.

I somehow doubt it to.

I've hated Gordon Brown & New Labour for 13 years, so it'll be refreshing to hate someone else for a change.

I can understand that.
I suspect it won't take long for you to start hating this shower.

I've just been watching the news on BBC1 and according to a Lib Dem MP, negotiations with New Labour didn't get anywhere as Gordon Brown wouldn't compromise on anything, including electroral reform, which doesn't surprise me at all. When speaking to the media, he's always telling the electorate what they want to hear, but behind closed doors he's doing the complete opposite.

Or could it be that Brown wasn't prepared to compromise both his and his party's principles anymore yet Cameron and Clegg were both prepared to sacrifice anything as long as they both got a little bit of power?

I just wonder how many of us will remember the promises that have been made over the last few days and how many of them will have been kept when next we go to the polls, which won't be too long away I suspect.

Originally posted by Freeborn

I've hated Gordon Brown & New Labour for 13 years, so it'll be refreshing to hate someone else for a change.

Yep same here, like when bush left and now obama, nothing really changes with the new face.

Its like you get a moment of fresh air, till the hate hits you again, isn't it.

Originally posted by kindred
reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

That's funny coming from someone whose a victim of New Labour spin. New Labour spin is a disease where those affected think they are wearing red rose-tinted glasses. The victim thinks they are living a life of luxury and they worship the ground New Labour walks on, but unfortunately if the victim were to take off their glasses, they would see everything isn't as it seems.

I'm not a Tory, I'm just not idiotic enough to vote and reward a party who has decimated this country over the last 13 years and will continue to do so if they form the next government. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[edit on 11-5-2010 by kindred]

"Decimated the country" what are you talking about? the country was decimated in the 80's when factories had to close with full order books in the North of England because of the high interest rates, and nothing to do with Labour. New Labour brought about a period right up to 2008 when you could walk into a shop an buy something almost at the same price that it had been for years, mortgage levels barely changed. Infrastructure vastly improved by policy, not by hands on in other words "boring" stability. I smell the press here, not the Coffee.

Originally posted by Drexl
I wouldn't worry too much about 'international terrorism'. An excuse to wage war , is all it is.

The thing I do not get with the Lib Dems , is that , should they go into an alliance with the Tories, they would be forever tainted with that association. The Tories could put up a national referendum on AV or PR , and all the tory voters would vote no , followed by a legion of Labour supporters out to exact revenge for the treachery by sitting on their hands or a no vote . They cannot win by these means, they would split the party and alienate scottish voters. It is a no go.

I agree with all you say except for international terrorism, it's real and demonstrable and so many people have been victims and it will not go away. My point is that in this election it is a side issue, just like so-called global warming. Economy, social issues and the like can all be dealt with and are subject to market forces, which was the thrust of this election. Prior to this, the big debates were the climate and terrorism, not much about it during the election. In the background, however it is Conservative policy for instance, to end the British presence in Germany, but not in Afghanistan and presumably those german based troops will be deployed elsewhere...like Afghanistan.

Just read this on the BBC... See if you can guess who said it...

He said: "I tell you why [that party pact has] been rejected by most .. MPs - because they know that they are a bunch of opportunistic toerags, who'll say anything to anyone in order to get power.

You may guess that it was a LibDem or Conservative... it was actually former Labour minister Kim Howells who was scathing of the LibDems, saying that he was glad his party had not done a deal with them!

Now that is rich considering the actions of Ali and Mandy and the Labour attempts to hang on to power ;-)

Whether we like it or not, we now have a new government and I for one am quite prepared to regard this first coalition for 70 years as the first faltering modern steps to a new form of inclusive government.

It isn't perfect, but we should give the benefit of the doubt until we see the effects of this government.

Just watched the 'Lib Con' (very apt term, I feel betrayed by the libs) press conference in the back garden of Downing St., everyone seems agog with their performance, body language, comradery etc. What i find worrying is the use of the term "Common Purpose" 5 times.

I think we can expect to see this term surfacing much more now than in the past. I think new world order will still appear for world matters but for UK specific stuff 'Common Purpose' will be the phrase.

Anyone not knowing the significance of the term just needs to use the search function or to google it. There's tons of damning stuff on it on uk centric sites. They are the squeaky clean recruitment and talent spotting arm of the NWO here in blighty.





Get ready Britain, Jakarta is coming.

Originally posted by spookfish
Just watched the 'Lib Con' (very apt term, I feel betrayed by the libs) press conference in the back garden of Downing St., everyone seems agog with their performance, body language, comradery etc. What i find worrying is the use of the term "Common Purpose" 5 times.
.

I heard that too "Common Purpose", both used the term.

www.commonpurpose.org.uk...



I know little about the group, but youtube has few videos on them. Not really sure what to make of it. The youtube vids are all a bit sesationalist if you know what i mean

reply to post by spookfish


How have the LibDems betrayed anybody? They have more chance to implement the thrust of their policies in the next 5 years than they ever would have in 10 or 15 of minority opposition. You think that electoral reform would have happened had they not gone into coalition? Should they have stuck to the letter of their manifesto pledges for the next 95 years, as it has taken them this long to get back into a power position from 1916.

Politics is always about compromise, even within single party governments. History provides the evidence that even Adolf Hitler had to compromise - if even he had to do it in his pervasive Nazi environment then of course every government has to.

The LibDems have a real opportunity to introduce moderation to traditional Conservative policy and should take it happily for the benefit of the nation.

The idea that the use of 2 words provides a clear link with the NWO is a nonsense. So the 3 main UK parties, ideologically disparate as they are, are all part of the NWO? Well, looks like we may as well stop complaining about it because it is firmly in place.

Of course, we could just wait and see if the ConLibDem coalition gives us the government we want and base our judgements on that.

I wonder if in the new vomit inducing hollywood vogue to afford new names to newlyweds, like Branginena and Bennifer, they will do the same with David and Nick.

...I might go for that one.

reply to post by Knobby


Davick? Nickid? Actually 'Nickid' sounds like a southern guy telling his wife to undress... 'Get nickid...'

Nickvid sounds like a contact name for a Grey...

Camerlegg sounds like a medieval fortress.... Hmmmm...

We're Knights of the Round Table.
We dance whene'er we're able.
We do routines and chorus scenes
With footwork impeccable.
Monty Python

reply to post by SugarCubeSorry for taking so long to reply: my analogue life is interfering with my digital!

Academic experts may well consult with MPs but it is the general public that needs to fully understand how their vote will count toward the government they actually want.

I agree that nothing so important ought to change without a referendum. My point is that the groundwork has already been done. When the majority of people make their minds up on issues of the economy, they dont read economists to form an opinion. Similarly, they dont read education theory before they decide how they want schools run. Some couldn't understand, some couldn't be bothered.
What we do have is MPs to read this stuff & communicate it in simpler terms that their constituents can understand or be bothered to take in. We must then rely on journalists to dissect what MPs say & tell us by how much they're distorting their source material to suit their own ends.
Plus ca change. Plus la meme chose!
The point being that the info is available to MPs now, so we could get a debate going quite quickly.
Of course, now the Tories are offering a referendum on AV, PR is kicked into the long grass, as they say.