- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
@Pears – Yes, exactly. So we can judge how honest their supposed anti-NATO position was, when it evaporated so fast. It’s an extremely important issue. Who left the party over it? Once upon a time there was opposition to nuclear power too.
“Putin’s war in the Ukraine” indeed. Duh.
As a socialist monarchist I must declare that my preference for a monarchy over a republic is the power of the billionaires and AIPAC lobbies. British territory is British Sovereign territory. Our elected governments are flogging off or giving away our energy, water, rail, etc utilities, to the global corporations and hedge funds. ‘Don’t forget what we said about the oil’ (in UK waters) were Trump’s parting words to the King as he patted his hand. The government has stated that the oil will stay in the seabed, but Shell, which is nominally a British company but has major shareholders such as Black Rock, is towing its drilling gear ready to drill for the oil in the North Sea. Greenpeace are on their way too, to try and halt the drilling. The seabed is British Sovereign territory and Shell should not be there without permission. Did the King actually agree, without the authorisation of Parliament. I sincerely doubt he was more than merely diplomatically oblique….
Regarding the Mandelson vetting business: it’s interesting how
* respect for the civil service has fallen (Olly Robbins) so no job here for Sue Gray and say hello to the retired judiciary – safe pair of hands, old boy; and
* the media have now been given the okay to notice vetting, albeit only to a very limited extent. Who vets chairs of parliamentary committees, or government ministers for that matter, or those on “track” for such positions? Still unclear. You could say “who cares?” but isn’t this supposed to be a parliamentary “democracy”? If lots of people vote for Party X, why should its MPs be vetted by Agencies Unknown efore its PM appoints them to run ministries? Or are they vetted earlier? Lol. Mustn’t ask.
I fail to see why it is possible to be a socialist monarchist. The monarch is a billionaire.
Another thing the journalists didn’t “notice” for decades, apart from vetting, was “king’s consent”. Until recently, it wasn’t noticed. This is the requirement that government bills are checked for whether they may impact the monarch’s financial interests before they even get presented to parliament. There’s also “prince’s consent”, regarding the Prince of Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall. Who can I vote for if I want to get rid of this?
If I tried to register the Abolish King’s Consent party, with a view to getting people to vote for its candidates, I wouldn’t be allowed, because “King” is a prohibited word. Come to Britain – Sh*tclown Centrale.
Starmer is likely to fall from office soon, probably after the elections (local and Scottish general) on 7 May.
If I may wear a “politicians should be good boys” hat for a moment, ridiculous as it may be, if the job of a prime minister is to know something and he doesn’t know it – in this case that his choice of ambassador failed his vetting – that’s his fault.
I find it difficult to believe that the outcome of such a vetting process related to the person proposed for such a (supposed) vital position for the UK wasn’t communicated to the PM even if only informally. On the other hand, I find it odd that the outcome of such a process isn’t plastered over all documents related to such an appointment if, for no other reason, than to cover the vetting department’s ass. A bit like “allergic to penicillin” on medical notes one would expect “failed vetting” to be everywhere in big red print. Especially given the context of Peter Mandelson’s known Epstein relationship. If Starmer wasn’t informed, and the usual methodology of informing such processes wasn’t followed (“failed vetting” in big red print) I’d have to ask myself if such non-conforming to the process was deliberate and if so, who gave the command to eschew protocol?
In the context of Starmer not toeing the line regarding the Iran war was this a saved point of leverage?
Given Starmer’s and the current government’s pro Israel stance it’s difficult to have any sympathy but I do wonder if not informing the PM of the failed vetting was a deliberate move.
I think you are correct Brian, it won’t be long before he is out. The May 7 local elections will be the final nail. I can’t help thinking that when the final push comes it will be aided and abetted by previous, deliberate(ly) manufactured leverage.Two current lines in the British media:
1) (already a theme) “supermarket workers and managers aren’t allowed to tackle shoplifters – isn’t this disgusting” – this plays to calls for “legitimate defence” (e.g. beating up or shooting shoplifters), ID cards, blacklisting, social credit, and of course racism
2) (soon to become a theme) a “Nigerian immigrant kills a cat and tries to cook it near a children’s playground” – a variation on the Trumpian theme of “they’re eating the dogs, they’re eating the cats”.
ET – “Starmer not toeing the line regarding the Iran war…”
But he is. The F-15 that was brought down in Iran was stationed at Lakenheath. The tanker aircraft that refuel the bombers fly from Mildenhall. The bombs dropped on Tehran are loaded at Fairford. The RAF are flying surveillance flights over Lebanon just as they did over Gaza. And so on.
Starmer claims that “this is not our war” and to be acting defensively. One day at primary school I upset my year’s gang. After school, the gang leader and his deputy caught up with me on my way home. The deputy held my hands behind my back so the leader could punch me in the face. By Starmer’s definition, the second was “acting defensively”.
What you’re seeing is play-acting, specifically the set piece known as “good cop, bad cop”. Bad cop Trump makes a lot of noise and berates good cop Starmer, so that Starmer, and by extension Centrists in general, can retain our confidence. But really, they’re both working towards the same ends – smash all resistance to the empire of capitalism, and free Israel to expand its borders. It wasn’t a mistake of Starmer’s to appoint Mandelson as US Ambassador; quite the opposite. Mandelson was chosen because he was a friend of Epstein, not despite the fact.
Paedophiliocracy.
Shared guilt binds these monsters. Starmer may not practice, but he protects those who do. He’s protecting a whole bunch of them in the Labour Party right now. He wasn’t protecting Jimmy Savile, he was protecting the heart of the British branch of the capitalist establishment:
ET, the link between Zionism and sexual abuse is far wider than generally realised; Israel is a refuge for literally thousands of abusers. Follow some of the links here:
One reads that an ex-MI6 boss has criticised Starmer over Mandelson and you just know it’ll be Richard Dearlove.
Could it possibly be that elements in the senior civil service in Britain are getting whacked (or fighting back?) for not being quite so subservient to ZOG (or the “let’s bomb Russia” project) as is expected of them?
Just a hypothesis. If this is what’s happening, there could possibly be big fireworks. Maybe bigger than at the Trinity May Ball in Cambridge 🙂
If anyone here is interested in this kind of stuff, the following is possible:
1. Starmer abandons post,
2. cabinet appoints Lammy as interim Labour leader,
3. Lammy brings Burnham into cabinet,
4. Lammy abandons post,
5. cabinet appoints Burnham as interim Labour leader,
6. an MP in a safe Labour seat (if one can be found) resigns and Burnham stands as candidate,
7.Burnham coronationleadership election date is set for after the by-election.Was the shouting at Rachel Reeves by the degenerate English nationalist with flags of St George all over his truck (meaning, as everyone knows: white customers preferred) a put-up job?
It was presumably the Tory campaign that paid the actor Andrew Parker to sound off about Rishi Sunak being a “P***” in the run-up to the 2024 general election. Nigel Farage called Parkers’ remarks “wrong” and he also (correctly IMO) said it was all set up.
This time? Well this time it’s very different… Farage and other Reform leaders have praised the degenerate flag boy. This time it looks as though rather than Reform’s opponents being behind it, it was Reform itself behind it. Cui bono? Answer: we’re no longer in 2024 and this time it’s good for Reform.
