It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If there is a 'One World Government' conspiracy, why is David Cameron my Prime Minister?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
On the morning of the 6th May 2010 David Icke was interviewed about his thoughts on the UK General Elections, the 6th being the Polling Day. Icke talked about the 'agenda to create an Orwellian, fascist, global state', in other words - the United States of Europe. This would be just one more step towards a One World Government.



In the interview Icke lays out what he believes will happen once the final votes are in - hung parliament followed by a Labour/Liberal Democrats Coalition.

He bases this on the fact that the Conservatives are opposed to the European Union (or at least the increased powers of the EU over British law) and Immigration.

Therefore, the perfect outcome for 'the powers that be' would be a coalition between Labour and Lib Dems, who have both proven themselves to be pro-EU and lacking on immigration.

Many political commentators rightly predicted a hung parliament followed by a coalition government; a coalition government where the Lib Dems would hold all of the cards. Even David Cameron admitted the strong position that Clegg found himself in when he stated that "It's now, I believe, decision time – decision time for the Liberal Democrats."

The Lib Dems were holding out for the best deal. Their main sticking point being electoral reform, more accurately a form of proportional representation, because not only would they likely double the number of seats they would win for the same share of the vote, but they would also be the probable coalition partner for both other major parties for the foreseeable future.

Their perfect partner would surely be Labour, who in February 2010, announced proposals that would see a referendum called on introducing alternative vote as a means of choosing MPs. Thus showing that they are not adverse to electoral reform.

For many, the Labour/Lib Dem Coalition seemed inevitable, especially when Lord Ashdown (former Lib Dem leader and close friend and mentor of Mr Clegg) gave his approval...


Liberal Democrats pave way for Labour coalition as recriminations grow

The prospect of the Liberal Democrat coalition with Labour moved a step closer as Lord Ashdown set out the case for a pact between Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg.

Describing the Conservatives as "rabidly anti-European", the former Lib Dem leader and close friend and mentor of Mr Clegg defended the legitimacy and stability of a deal with Labour. - Telegraph

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


However, just hours later Gordon Brown resigned as Prime Minister leaving the Conservatives to seize the initiative and eventually form a coalition government with the Lib Dems.

Yes, the Lib Dems did get their electoral reform. But they (and the powers that be) lost ground on the issues of Immigration: 'We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit.' and the EU: 'We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.'

So, when a hung parliament occurred and the perfect opportunity for a Labour/Lib Dem Coalition presented itself, why didn't it happen? If we are to believe that the final goal of these ruling elites is to unite Europe under one flag, why then didn't they take their opportunity to do so?




posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I actually disagreed with Icke on this one. From the media positioning in the lead up to the election, and for quite a while before, it was very clear that it the plan was for a Tory government.

The fact that it's turned out a coalition has confused me though. I don't see the benefit to TPTB in having a coalition gov. Especially one with the Libs in it at all. Although pro-EU, they are usually very anti-control and even if Nick Cleg is in their pockets, there's plenty of old school Libs that would never turn to the dark side.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Let's get this straight - I think Icke is a total whack-job, that doesn't mean that he can't be correct sometimes though and this to me is one of those times.

What I would also say about that election period and its contribution towards an Orwellian state (if it matters I voted LibDem) was that I honestly didn't think the LibDems would get in, but that it would give them a decent stab at taking a shot at it come the next election. What actually happened totally staggered me, as we all know traditional enemies Labour and Conservative have become increasingly indistinguishable over the past decade or so and LibDem was emerging as the only potential option for (some kind of) change. Instead we draw even closer to a one party system, or more to the point, truer to the Orwellian example what we think is a multi-party system that has one power behind it and we just boo and hiss for whichever figurehead we want.

Months later I still feel absolutely enraged and disillusioned by the entire debacle.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Nammu
 


Well, it is true that the vast majority of newspaper endorsements were in favour of the Conservatives.

I see the benefit in a coalition government though, just not a Con/Lib Dem coalition. A Labour/Lib Dem coalition would have been perfect for it would have banished the Conservatives into the political wilderness, especially considering the electoral reforms they would have definitely implemented.

I wouldn't be so sure about replying on the old school Lib Dems, after all, if the expenses scandals taught us anything it is that even some of the more respected politicians can be tempted by money; including many prominent Lib Dems, some of whom where campaigning for greater disclosure of MPs’ expenses, all the while claiming themselves.

But yes, the whole situation is baffling when looking at it conspiratorially.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jokei
 


The thing is, by joining a coalition the Lib Dems will undoubtedly be punished at the ballot box as many voters will feel betrayed by Clegg who will inevitably go against many of the issues he was championing. Such as signing up to the Conservatives' workfare agenda with many being concerned at how draconian these measures may be for a generation already taking an unfair share of the pain for the economic downturn.

The whole thing was a complete disaster for Labour who just looked lost at sea. But I still don't quite see where this all fits in conspiratorially


Maybe 'they' have changed their tactics?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by Nammu
 


Well, it is true that the vast majority of newspaper endorsements were in favour of the Conservatives.

I see the benefit in a coalition government though, just not a Con/Lib Dem coalition. A Labour/Lib Dem coalition would have been perfect for it would have banished the Conservatives into the political wilderness, especially considering the electoral reforms they would have definitely implemented.

I wouldn't be so sure about replying on the old school Lib Dems, after all, if the expenses scandals taught us anything it is that even some of the more respected politicians can be tempted by money; including many prominent Lib Dems, some of whom where campaigning for greater disclosure of MPs’ expenses, all the while claiming themselves.

But yes, the whole situation is baffling when looking at it conspiratorially.


I think the whole expenses scam really showed how institutionalised scamming money from the public really was. They seemed to think that this was just a benefit of the job, and many didn't relate it to being immoral. Hence the fact some MPs were campaigning to disclosure but claiming themselves. Really, they were actually acting inside the rules. It was the rules themselves that were wrong.

I think Lokei's point that including the Lib Dems in a coalition leads more towards a one party system is a fair assumption. It effectively integrates the number 3 player in UK politics into playing the game the way they want it to be played. So it could be a very clever move in that sense.

Indeed, one of the main policies of the Lib Dems (I did vote for them with this as my primary reason) was to remove ID cards and reduce databasing of personal information. I'm a member of the group No2ID and get their regular newsletter. According to them all Lib promises relatring to this have been broken.


Though ContactPoint has now been switched off and the data is being securely deleted, ID cards are not yet dead. There are some encouraging signs - for example, the government has just announced it is scrapping
the database being developed by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) that was originally intended to be the 'biographical' component of the National Identity Register. But the Bill to abolish the ID scheme has not yet passed, despite the Coalition's undertaking to get rid of ID cards in its first 100 days.



the Coalition has broken its promise to put patients in control of their health records. Hundreds of thousands of people are still having medical details uploaded to the Summary Care Record (SCR) system each month without their consent.


We should all be wary of the wolf in sheeps clothing methinks. Although I can't say i'm surprised when the wolf pops out. It's a bit of a shoddy disguise.......



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Nammu
 


You raise another good point that I forgot to mention - ID Cards. For all of the Conservatives short comings, and there are plenty of them, they have some policies that I can 100% get behind, and the prevention of ID Cards is one of them. I didn't realise that the Lib Dems felt the same way, which just goes to muddy the waters even more.

How come these two parties who both share some major policies that are 'anti-NWO' (so to speak) are allowed to form a coalition? Either the powers that be have shot themselves in the foot or they are quite happy, for reasons unknown, to let it all play out.

Personally I get the feeling that they are planning something big, something that would render the Coalitions laws and legislations impotent. The fact that Gordon Brown suddenly stepped down as PM when there was a good chance for him to still be in power until September is poignant. I get the feeling he might have received a phone call that morning from one of his bosses.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Don't discount the fact that David Cameron is related to the queen, and thus was always likely to be put in a position of power by TPTB.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:09 AM
link   
there isnt a global government idea, thats crazy

even the guy spanish I think that write books about Bilderberg Group and new world order says that the only thing they would do is to try to push a new type of organization to control the world economy more closely ...

like something related to CO2 control



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Well two things.. 1. David Ike? Really... you get political news form Ike?


Second I'd point out that it's a logical fallacy for "Liberal Democrats" and "conservatives" to create a coalition ..... anything.

They are polar opposites on all subjects and yet they are supposed to now have each others backs.



Cameron will not curtail immigration. He will not pull the UK out of the EU. He will not stop to end outsourcing. He will follow what the EU tells him to do, he will continue the charade.

Honestly, I hope everyone that voted for him is piiiiiiised off! He got elected, formed his "government" and immediately afterwards held a press conference saying "well thanks for the job but.. all that stuff I promised... yaa... maybe next time"



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I don't know about getting my 'political news' from Icke, but when he has something to say on politics I always listen because his knowledge of politics is vast. Ignore the reptilian nonsense and you'll see that Icke is very political literate.

I agree with what you say about the coalition, although they have made some progressive steps (ID Card Scheme being scrapped) only time will tell if they keep to their word. I'm not holding my breath.

But this governments lies will be far more transparent because of the coalitions chalk and cheese policies, hopefully people see through it.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join