Sunday, 29 November 2015

Tipping Point

Even a Lefty writing in The Independent has this weekend indicated that Jeremy Corbyn needs 'to be got rid of' as the headline puts it.

The trouble is that it can't be done. Anyone who knows how the Labour Party constitution and procedures operate will already be well aware that it is virtually impossible to topple the party leader. The leader has to step down, realistically, and that generally happens only after a General Election failure – as Ed[ward] Miliband did after his such failure just six months ago.

On top of that, with the huge support the current Dear Leader received when elected to that position – and still receives even today, if not to quite the same degree – both among the Labour party membership and around the country, it would not go down well if anyone were even to attempt to oust him, whether or not it succeeded.

Indeed, the mere attempt would not only impact Labour's support and votes in future elections, it would almost certainly lead to an unrecoverable split and the party breaking into two – something like what the 'Gang of Four' did some thirty years ago when they too broke away from Labour and created the Social Democratic Party (SDP).

This would split the existing Labour vote even more than if Mr Corbyn were to be left in place and his leadership never challenged, and make neither resulting party a strong parliamentary force, as each would have only a few dozen MPs at best – and those would no doubt be representing their own party's heartlands almost exclusively (there might be the odd fluke win for one or the other) so not representative of the majority of the electorate.
There are several other bad things that will probably happen, but that will be the overriding consideration, I can well imagine.

Perversely, therefore, it is probably best for the party to leave things as they are, grit their teeth and wait it out until the next General Election in May 2020. They are simply going to write that one off in advance – and I suspect that privately many have already done so.
They can meanwhile, in the shadows, and starting right now, be devising and creating mechanisms that they can simply drop into place immediately there is a change, ready to begin re-building the party's electoral (and perhaps other!) fortunes immediately after that almost certain total disaster, rather than losing months during the leadership election that will follow. Remember: it took more than four months to elect Jeremy Corbyn.

They must therefore hope that, after the 2020 election, Corbyn will then do what Ed-M did earlier this year and step down of his own volition (or perhaps with encouragement from party colleagues and others) as soon as the scale of the inevitable rout becomes clear, and certainly once the Conservatives pass the finishing line (326 seats) in the election results.

It is the only way they can now proceed, realistically, in a kind of damage limitation exercise that will last some 54 months.
They made their bed – no-one else imposed it on them – and now they must lie in it!

Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Through at Two

Again I am saying 'months' here, and once more looking at Jeremy Corbyn's career (such as it will turn out to be) as Labour party leader.

It is now two months since he became the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition party, and with a struggle has now even become a member of the Privy Council – which he is required to be in his position, but avoided once (on a flimsy pretext) and apparently didn't conform fully to the accepted protocols on the second occasion – but got away with that.

Rather than present a catalogue of causes of his upcoming (and necessary) departure from his new position, I think this by Iain Martin covers most of the bases, and is thus useful reading.

In practice, there is no reason to believe that Mr Corbyn will either step down from his party leadership position any time soon, or be successfully ousted. It could drag on for years, helped by the Labour party's own rules and procedures. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this was the month when his position became permanently untenable and he was now clearly an irreversible detraction from Labour's electoral and broader public standing.

The longer he remains, the more the public will learn of the true nature of Labour, usually hidden beneath a veneer of apparent respectability, so I am hoping it really does take years to oust him.

Saturday, 14 November 2015

Wheels Within Wheels

So, with the atrocities in Paris last night, I suspect even more people around the globe will become ever more aware of the evil that is in the world these days. All sorts of blames and accusations will be flung hither and yon, especially by those with their own preferred slant – perhaps even outright prejudices.

Perhaps all too predictably, this latest attack by several gunmen was, according to what one reportedly called out, in retaliation for involvement in Syria. Cue accusations of 'Muslims' and 'refugees' – which has already happened, but misses the target.

The reality is that these were people who were happy at inflicting violence, at killing. It was easy for them, and they schemed and planned to make it happen. Whatever their stated 'cause', it was in the first place a licence to indulge their blood-lust. Such a severely deranged (and dangerous) mental state is required to be able to behave in that manner.

Ultimately it doesn't really matter what the supposed 'cause' is or is stated to be: such people will find a way to do what they have a lust to do. They are ideal foot-soldiers for the New World Order – the real force behind all of this and much more.

And that is what this is really all about.

All the bad stuff in the world that has been ramping up over several years now is a sign not just of the 'end times', but of the end days – which is allegorical, as it will encompass quite a few years all told, most of which has now passed. We are very close indeed to the time for which the Antichrist will be allowed to rule. His throne was installed in the Vatican a few years ago, and he might even have been formally enthroned by now.

To Roman Catholic officials who like to claim that the throne is nothing more than 'a piece of tasteless art' (two of them have previously tried that line with me) I'd counter that we have already seen the artworks of the design for this throne, and it is a close enough match to be beyond any reasonable doubt.

That is the point of origin, one might call it, but there are several distinct but sometimes overlapping components to the New World Order structure, which is designed to enslave us all. First we have

Secret Societies

There is no legitimate reason for a society to be at all secretive unless what it is doing is so dubious in nature as to necessitate it. That is a truism, with no apparent exceptions apart from governmental security services for obvious reasons; and even those we know about to some extent.

The Illuminati seem to have been the main engineers in establishing the New World Order; and were certainly responsible for telling those who were watching and waiting around the world that it was eventually fully in place, by having their pyramid with the 'all-seeing eye' put on the American dollar banknote. There is no other reason for its presence there, of course.

The Freemasons are the more visible of the main secret societies, and look to be intended to become the day-to-day managers of the new order, reporting to their Illuminati bosses, who in turn will no doubt report directly to the entity on that throne.


There are many religions, nearly all mutually incompatible and a few directly contradictory. Obviously they cannot all be right, and many (perhaps most) will no doubt turn out to have been either created by the devil or encouraged by him. It is easy enough to eliminate those that are obviously incompatible with the nature of God or us, are non-corroborated, or appeared at a seemingly pointless time, such as between Jesus' first and second comings. There is no need for anything new to suddenly come into being in between, as it has all been covered already.

The reason for all these others is firstly to misdirect people, and the second is to encourage atheism by having folk tar all religions with the same brush and end up throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?) Atheism is of course lazy, ignorant or willful, and means not having even a fraction of a clue about why anything exists, including ourselves. Still, that's the choice of many, made much more commonplace because of all the 'dodgy' faiths out there.

Fortunately, the Holy Bible is consistent with the nature of God (as we can experience, which is encouraged), it has so many observers, chroniclers, participants and prophets writing in it that even the last of those four categories has to be divided into Major Prophets and Minor Prophets. And that's just those who had books named after them! There are other ways to tell what has the ring of truth about it and what hasn't, too many to go into here.

This doesn't mean that the devil hasn't tried to subvert (and succeeded) genuine formalised religions, as the business with the Vatican that I mentioned above attests. If one keeps to the Word, though, especially the New Testament, rather than the word of corruptible humans, then one can't go far wrong, if at all...

Political Structures

It will come as little surprise that this is another key area for Satan to have had a strong foothold for many years and in fact decades – probably longer, but perhaps less acutely felt, especially here in Britain. Although any part of our political establishment could in theory be turned, it was here – as in other countries – that the political left were the easy targets. It was so simple to nudge them toward a dependency on deception, theft and manipulation, ending up ultimately in oppression and totalitarianism.

It seems nowadays that all the significant Left around the world is in thrall to the devil – and there is a huge wealth of instances that even I could relate, and I am sure there are numerous others with their own experiences and what they have witnessed. I can think of no notables exceptions to this seemingly solid rule, but perhaps I have missed something.

Overall, all these wheels are turning all the time, largely independently of the others, but together they are a formidable force, all ready to move up the gears when it all starts to kick-off in earnest. With the Paris killings, I think we now have an early warning that we are very close to that time!

Thursday, 15 October 2015

Public Questions at Council

Undoubtedly the most contentious issue at tonight's ordinary meeting of the full Medway Council – which will be starting half an hour later than usual, because of a special item of business just before – will probably be the elimination of supplementary questions from the public. The published questions will remain, but not the (more often than not) politically-loaded secondary 'supplementary' question.

Here is the agenda for tonight's meeting.

I am not surprised at this action, owing to the ongoing abuses of this facility over the years. There is no legal right to it, and it is something that I have witnessed creating ever more difficulties for getting to and through the proper business of the Council – all that is on the agenda that affects many more, perhaps all in some instances, of the quarter of a million residents of Medway, not just those with a one-issue agenda that they wish to push. Usually there will be a body of Lefty 'rent-a-crowd' in the public gallery, supporting them and heckling and/or booing the responders.

The abuses of the public questions agenda item have always been most evident in the run-up to either the council's own elections or a General Election. This year we had both of those on the same day!

One clue is in how the public questions then become dominated by candidates from opposition parties, mainly Labour but also a fair few from other parties. The first question, which has to be okay-ed by the Chief Executive of the council with legal advice from the Monitoring Officer, is obviously constrained by legal and constitutional restrictions, and is seen by the member who is to respond so an answer can be prepared. The (supposedly brief) supplementary, however, is completely unknown to the responder until it is asked.

Far too many of these have been non-questions, over-long, and party politically dominated, especially in those election run-up periods. There are many other aspects that look very much like an abuse of the facility, and the rest of us in the public gallery have to wait for all this guff to be got out of the way before the meeting reaches the real business of the evening. Why should we have to? Don't we count?

Perhaps public questions should be made the last agenda item...

A little history might be useful here. Some years ago, when I was on the elected Council, I brought to a meeting of the Conservative Group my own misgivings about the supplementary question business, anticipating exactly what has since come to pass. Nearly all those who participated in the ensuing discussion, from all parts of the 33-strong group, defended the supplementaries – some quite robustly. Thus I know with absolute certainly that this isn't a 'Conservative plot to stop proper public scrutiny' (as has been claimed) or anything of the sort.

As always in this life, abuse something too much, too often, and you risk losing it altogether. The current proposals are just a warning shot across the bows, leaving Medway as still one of the better councils in this regard (many other councils have much greater restrictions, such as only one question per meeting and only two per year) though not one of the very 'best', if one thinks along such lines.

When I was campaigning for one thing or another, I applied intelligence rather than 'mob rule' (as one can sometimes witness at Council meetings here) so was able to achieve a number of good outcomes, most of which very few folk realise I even had that big a hand in(!) How much have the 'usual suspects' and their fellow-travellers achieved via their methods? A tiny fraction, between the lot of them!

There is a lesson there for those with enough brain cells to realise it – and to suss out that, it many instances, the real campaigners are being politically manipulated. That too is something I have witnessed a number of times, including Labour candidates and former members among the rent-a-crowd I mentioned above, and I have noticed them starting off the bad behaviour on more than one occasion.

The best results come from respecting structures such as Council meetings – which were agreed by all parties involved, by the way – and not giving those in control any reason to take away anything from the current structure/format. Tonight's expected changes are a case of cause-and-effect, and the cause has been the mounting body of evidence – all captured on audio – that the present rules have become untenable because of the public's (some of them!) long-term and ongoing abuses.

Put the boot on the other foot: what would you do?

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

Fun at One

One month, that is.

A month ago I wrote about what I foresaw as possible consequences of the Corbyn leadership of the British Labour party. One month in, much of what I anticipated has come to pass, other aspects are obviously on the way but currently still to come, and one or two items might not happen exactly as I thought they were most likely to go.

Already, the new leadership and its campaign team have moved to try to make the party the more-or-less revolutionary Marxist body I have been quietly expecting, with ways to deselect moderate sitting MPs and replacing them with out-and-out Lefties as candidates at future elections. The leadership's approach to the party's sitting MPs has been disastrous, as last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Party – well-reported in various places – demonstrated very clearly, helped by members tweeting their views from within the meeting room.

The MPs are not happy, especially with policy U-turns and other impositions by the Dear Leader and his staunch supporter, the new shadow chancellor John McDonnell. So far they seem to be sticking with the party, rather than (as yet) forming a breakaway new party, SDP style. I think that will have to come in due course, most likely in the second quarter of next year by my (typically complicated but thorough) reckoning.

Frankly, the parliamentary party is tearing itself apart, as several of its members have openly admitted via social media in particular – and the broader party nationwide isn't faring much better.

This is fine in some regards, as it is what many of us anticipated and it could prove valuable to the Labour party if they bother to learn the lessons. Some will, but I suspect that many others will not, and the party's future viability is thus threatened if they don't fix this in the false belief that either all is well, or that it cannot be mended.

In the final analysis the fading away of Labour would be a good thing for Britain – but not if it leaves a vacuum where there should be a credible Official Opposition party (Labour can probably never again be a party of government, by the way) and there are no other viable contenders at the present time. I wish there were.

Labour have a long-standing track record of putting themselves through periods such as this, but always coming back from the brink. It genuinely might not happen this time, but it is not impossible. The next month should be even more telling than these past few weeks have been...