Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

The Uniparty is dead, long live the Uniparty

On Thursday, the UK held its General Election and, as widely predicted, the Labour party (left wing) won by a landslide. Whilst on the outset this may seem like Brits have lurched to the left after a disastrous 14 years of Conservative (right wing) power, all is not as it seems. (I’ve labelled the parties left and right wing for newcomers to British politics but in reality they are both the Uniparty, following a centrist, neoliberal agenda with minimal differences between their policies).

So why isn’t this the huge victory that Labour claims it to be? After all they have just won 412 seats, up 211 from the previous election.

In fact, fewer people actually voted for Labour than they did in the last disastrous (‘worst result since the ‘30s’) 2019 election where the Conservatives won a huge majority. Five years ago, under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour received 10,269,051 votes, winning only 202 seats, whilst this time, under Keir Starmer, they only received 9,698,409 votes.

This was both because of voter apathy (possibly the lowest turnout for a century) and due to the two main parties only receiving 58% of the votes cast (again, the worst result for a century).

Due to the quirks of the British first-past-the-post voting system, just under 34% of people who voted, voted for Labour, yet they still won by a landslide. Including all non-voters and spoiled votes means only around 20% of the population voted for the current government. This wasn’t a Labour victory but a revolt against the Conservatives. Labour’s percentage share only increased by 1.6% since the last election whilst the Conservative’s dropped by 19.9%.

The number of seats won by the Conservatives is the worst result in two centuries.

This was a vote against the cost of living crisis and uncontrolled immigration. Issues which newly formed Reform party leapt on, pulling voters away from the Conservatives. Without competition from Reform, it is likely that the Conservatives would have won 38% of the votes and secured victory.

Subconsciously (because the issue was never raised during the short election campaign) it was also a vote against lockdowns and vaccine mandates. The people just did not trust the Conservatives after the social contract had been broken. But unfortunately, none of the others were any better. Keir Starmer wanted longer and harder lockdowns and Richard Tice and Nigel Farage (Reform) both agreed with lockdowns and mandates at the time (They have since condemned the second and third lockdowns but still agree with the initial one).

Voters were not voting for someone they believed in, they were voting to show that they had had enough. To prove this point, Keir Starmer’s votes collapsed by half since the last election, from 36,641 in 2019 to 18,884 yesterday. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for our new leader.

You would have to be mad to trust Keir Starmer. As head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) he was part of the legal machine that incarcerated Julian Assange and failed to investigate Jimmy Saville (Britain’s Jeffrey Epstein).

Voters will only become more disillusioned going forwards when they realise that Labour won 65% of seats (412 Members of Parliament (MPs)) from only 34% of the vote. Whilst the Reform party, who won 14% of votes only won 1% of seats, with 5 MPs.

To put it another way, Labour won 412 seats with 9,696,409 votes whilst Reform won 5 seats with just under half this with 4,114,287 votes. The Uniparty wins again. They give you just enough to make the general population believe there is democracy, whilst one World Economic Forum (WEF) member takes over from another WEF member.

With respect to our privacy and freedoms, Big Brother Watch sets out what the Labour government plans to do:

• Expand the censorious Online Safety Act;

• Introduce an Artificial Intelligence Bill; and

• Create a ‘National Data Library’.

They also think that in the early days of government, Labour will:

• Take over the secretive Counter Disinformation Unit (now called the National Security Online Information Team), with senior Labour figures saying it had been too “dormant”;

• Take over the Treasury’s plans to pilot a Central Bank Digital Currency; and

• Decide whether to continue with the Home Office’s live facial recognition expansion plans.

Be warned.

There were two pleasing results for me personally. Firstly, exiting Prime Minister Rishi Sunak won his seat, meaning he can’t just disappear off to the job he has lined up in California without an excuse. And secondly, head of the 77th Brigade (the army unit which spied on citizens during lockdown) Tobias Elwood got voted out.

Now on to some speculation and questions.

Starting from the beginning, a lot of Keir Starmer’s history seems to have been wiped from the Internet.

He constantly claims to be working class, repeating his mantra that his Dad ‘was a toolmaker’. However, a lot of evidence suggests that his father, Rodney, actually owned the company, the Oxted Tool Company. However, Companies House says there are no records in existence, which means he was either a sole trader or they have been wiped.

It doesn’t matter whether his Father was an employee or the owner of the factory but it is disingenuous for Starmer to use this as a vote winner, if the former.

Again, with his schooling, he claims to be working class but went to Reigate Grammar School which wasn’t a traditional grammar but a voluntary aided one. This means that a foundation or trust contributes to the running of the school and had substantial influence over it. The school converted to a fee-paying school whilst he was there. Again, there is little information about whether he paid fees or who funded the school.

Whilst at school he was a member of the Labour Young Socialists before editing a Trotskyist magazine after university. That didn’t stop him getting selected as Director of Public Prosecutions however.

Whilst at the CPS, Starmer was in charge of Assange’s extradition and made four trips to the US. All details of these trips have been deleted by the CPS.

There have also been claims that Starmer was a spy with his visa application and hand-written personal details apparently kept by the Czechoslovakian secret police in a directorate titled “Foreign Intelligence”.

Now on to the election.

I have questioned before the motives for Rishi Sunak calling a snap July election. It made no sense, caught his own party off-guard and ruined his chances of winning. Perhaps Barack Obama had given him the orders? Obama ‘dropped in’ for a surprise visit with Sunak in March but the details of the conversation were kept quiet. According to reports, the two had a private conversation in Sunak’s study for an hour.

(Since then, it has been revealed that Starmer has been being coached for the election by Obama. Starmer, who was a previous member of the Trilateral Committee, was introduced to Obama by David Lammy, who has now been made Foreign Secretary. Lammy is a regular Bilderberger and met Obama at a Harvard law school event for black alumni).

Then a month or so later, Rishi called the election, to be held on 4 July…American Independence Day. A strange date, almost hinting at American interference. Plus there is there Masonic symbolism of 4 July, a reason it was selected in 1776 in the first place.

Almost as if to confirm this Masonic influence, Sunak’s final speech as Prime Minister on Thursday was complimented by his wife’s Masonic chevrons behind him.

In his speech, he also used the strange corporate phrase of “his [Starmer’s] successes will be all our successes”. This exact same phrase was then repeated by David Cameron, basically confirming the stakeholder Uniparty.

To confirm that Sunak actually wanted to lose the election, these are his leaving photos, which look like he was actually the one who won the landslide.

Clearly disappointed to be leaving.

And Reform party’s emergence was also suspicious. It was a nothing party until Nigel Farage appeared out of nowhere to lead them. Previously, he had said he would be focussing on helping Trump win his election campaign but on almost the same day as Trump’s ‘hush money’ verdict, Farage undertook a huge U-turn.

As I mentioned above, Reform split the conservative vote, ensuring a Labour victory. I have no problem with Reform appearing, because change was required, but they needlessly opposed actual, decent Conservatives, such as Miriam Cates, who would have won, had it not been for them.

And then on to Starmer’s victory speech. He concluded by saying that “it is surely clear to everyone that our country needs a bigger reset”. The Great Reset was not enough, we need a bigger one.

Then, just to wind everyone up and confirm who really is in charge, Starmer appointed Patrick Vallance as Minister of State for Science. Vallance was one of the men who took us into lockdowns and is not an MP. But who needs democracy? Now, this unelected, ex president of GlaxoSmithKline, who has declared that another pandemic is ‘absolutely inevitable’ will be in charge of THE Science.