Oncoming Labour/Tory coalition spoken about openly in the MSM

Former Home Secretary Kenneth Baker nails the specifics of how the Labour/Tory coalition will work:
What is at risk is the continuing unity of the UK. In order to preserve that unity, another way should be found. This could be a joint government of the Labour and Conservative Parties – quite unthinkable at the moment and, at this time, likely to be rejected by both of them. But this is what has happened in Germany.
The Prime Minister would be the party leader with most seats – at the moment it looks like David Cameron but it could be Ed Milliband – and both parties would have cabinet seats. Such a coalition should only last two years, which means that the fixed five-year term Parliament Act would be repealed, leading to a general election in 2017.
It would be possible for this government to find areas of agreement – defence, counter-terrorism, infrastructure investment in schools, road, rail and in the reform of skills training and energy. The more controversial manifesto promises would have to be foregone but not abandoned; David Cameron may have to wait until 2018 for the European referendum and Ed Milliband for 2018 for the Mansion Tax.
But this government’s main purpose should be to establish a Constitutional Convention – covering not just Scotland but Wales, Northern Ireland and England – with the intention of preserving the United Kingdom and ensuring that devolution, which is the order of the day, is achieved in an orderly, fair, consistent and coherent way. It must not come about through a series of patchwork measures driven by just one part of the UK, the consequences of which have not been thought through.
One would hope that a consensus would emerge but, in any event, each party could set out its own views at the ensuing general election.
Firstly, that he is thinking about it, means he's wrong to describe it as "unthinkable". Podcast listeners know I have been saying this might happen, as have many others. So, "unthinkable" is a factually inaccurate assertion.

I won't say it's a lie, maybe he was unaware that earlier this month Labour MP, Gisela Stuart made headlines with the same idea and turn of phrase. The Birmingham Post: “If on May 8 you had a position where Labour had more seats than the Tories but not enough to form a government — but the Tories had more votes than Labour — I think you should not dismiss the possibility of a grand coalition.”

Secondly, I'm hard put to think where the two major parties do not agree. If, you judge them by their deeds rather than lies/words. Who deregulated the banks, brought in tuition fees, bailed out the banks, invaded Iraq, put speed cameras on every corner and had a love in with George Bush? Was it the "evil" Tories or "stupid" Labour? Which one wants to ring fence foreign aid and was quoted recently as saying "I believe man-made climate change is one of the most serious threats this country and this world faces"?

Which of them doesn't support expanding the power structure of the EU?

In all seriousness, what are the key differences? The problem we have with these characters is they appear to come to their agreements, with those they represent, in secret. Not you, the people who vote for them, you're not that important. No, they meet their real masters, and what they discuss is always confidential.

I realize I'm in conspiracy territory here but The Bilderberg Group is real and meet in strict confidence. Your Prime Minister's weekly meetings with The Queen are also entirely confidential. Here are but a couple of examples, already I am picturing people's response. If you find this world view hard to accept the problem is you've been conditioned to dismiss these notions. The broadcast media rolls its eyes, plays spooky music and mocks anyone who suggests this kind of thing. Yet it is a clear explanation for the fact our politicians appear powerless and out of touch.

I'm no different, I still find it hard to believe many of the stories which have come out recently strongly suggesting "conspiracy" and not "democracy" is "the order of the day".

Theories differ on the specifics of how that power structure works but it is clearly how these people get told what to do. They don't care what you want. If they did referendums would be common, not controversial.

Nowadays he's called "Lord Baker"
Recognize him?
In this instance Baker thinks devolution is "the order of the day". He's probably right, mostly these orders direct us towards a stronger centralized power base in Europe and an increasingly less powerful United Kingdom. I've argued in the past that this is the real reason behind Scottish Independence.

Either way being part of a United States of Europe is clearly non-negotiable. This is a major stumbling block at the election. I've said previously that, you don't have to be overly paranoid to see that there is a deep cross-party organised EU-phile ring operating at the heart of Her Majesty's Government.

The most interesting aspect of the above quote from Kenneth Baker is it acknowledges the European referendum will be postponed. That's the reason I'm starting to think the Tory/Labour coalition is something we will see soon.

Maybe I'm just hoping. When I first heard of plans to try to pull off a Tory/Labour coalition, some time back now, I thought the idea was wonderful because surely that would wake people up, snap them out of their stupors? I didn't really take it seriously because I thought "the elite" would never risk it. Too many people, I thought, would finally see what many have been saying for years: this is not a democracy it's an oligarchy.

Time will tell but the fact this country is run by Lords, Ladies, Monarchs and billionaires is becoming harder to ignore. Our ancestors didn't like it. Why should we?


If you think this is an important part of tonight's debates please retweet this tweet here before tonight's Leaders Debates:


Popular Posts