‘Conservative Brexit’ – The Reason the Tories are Still in Office

Adrian Scottow on Flickr.com

When Theresa May announced back in April that there was to be a snap general election, both the media and the public were caught unawares. No rumours had been circulating beforehand that she was about to go to the polls. The announcement was sudden. Clandestine if you will. Further adding to the surprise was May’s open admission (recited twice for added emphasis) that she had come to this decision ‘reluctantly’. Pundits lined up to remind her that in the aftermath of the Brexit vote, she had categorically stated on half a dozen occasions that she would not be calling an early election.

After the announcement I published an article where I predicted that May would increase her majority come June the 8th. Whilst this was proven incorrect, my belief that the UK’s Brexit process would remain under the Conservative banner came to fruition.

In the build up to polling day, Theresa May was positioned at times as the presidential candidate of a republic. The focus squarely on her. ‘Theresa May’s Team’ was the predominant message during large swathes of the campaign. As she espoused the need for ‘strong and stable leadership in the national interest’, the Conservatives launched their election manifesto. And so began what I believe to have been a carefully managed process of deligitimising Theresa May and her party. The reasons for which we will now look into.

The manifesto was derided from all quarters for containing a controversial policy on social care, dubbed a ‘dementia tax’. The perception was that it was an attack on senior citizens – the Tories core base of support. As the fallout from the policy threatened to overwhelm Theresa May, a suicide bomber blew himself up at the Manchester arena killing twenty two people. The UK was targeted a second time five days before the election, after a van mowed down people on London Bridge before the occupants escaped out onto the streets and began stabbing people. Eight people lost their lives. May immediately came under pressure over cuts to policing that were undertaken during her tenure as Home Secretary.

May also came in for sustained criticism for not debating Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn in a TV duel, and for opting not to take part in a live leader’s debate. Accusations of cowardice and contempt for the electorate grew louder as the days wore on.

When it came to the election itself, the anticipated Conservative majority failed to materialise. Come the morning of June the 9th, the result was confirmed as a hung parliament with the Tories as the largest party. The same scenario had occurred back in 2010 when the Tories won 306 seats to Labour’s 258. The Liberal Democrat share of 57 meant that a coalition government was open to either a Tory/Lib Dem alliance or a pact between Labour and the Lib Dems. This latest hung parliament was never a contest. Given that the Conservatives won 318 seats, the combined total of Labour, the Scottish National Party, Liberal Democrats, the Democratic Unionist Party and the Greens fell short of the Tories total.

Labour may have gained 30 seats this time round, but it was impossible for them to benefit from the result. What the country was presented with was in effect a false hung parliament, in that the Tories were the only party who could physically form a government out of it. They lost their majority but not their ability to govern.

Whilst Labour’s manifesto pledge of ‘For the Many, Not the Few’ gained in popularity, lingering doubts persisted over the party’s capability to hold power. Examples of this came from Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbot who both struggled to convey over the airwaves the costings of Labour party policies. The party’s narrative on Brexit was muddled – Corbyn campaigned for a ‘soft Brexit’ but had previously made the process of triggering article 50 painless for the Conservatives by whipping sufficient numbers of his MP’s into line. Then there was Corbyn’s less combative stance on terrorism and continual lines in the media over his alleged refusal to condemn the IRA.

I believe all of these instances played a part in creating enough doubt in the electorate’s mind over handing power to Labour. Most importantly, however, was that the party’s campaign proved enough to wipe out the Tory’s majority, thanks largely to Corbyn successfully marshalling the youth vote and voters in their twenties and thirties. The same age brackets that are weighted in favour of remaining in the European Union.

The aftermath of the election result revolved around Brexit. The Tories social care policy and subsequent terrorist attacks had steered the national conversation away from the EU. Issues such as the NHS and policing had instead gained traction. Post election threw open the floodgates on Brexit – a process that was now seen as being in ‘chaos’ with negotiations due to start in under two weeks time.

Theresa May had been both delegitimised and weakened after losing her majority. Crucially, though, her party had not been decimated. Compromised and battered no doubt. But unrivaled when it came to forming a government. Instead of heeding calls to resign, May pushed on and began negotiating a confidence and supply deal with the DUP to shore up her authority in the House of Commons.

Now began a recurring process to further delegitimise Theresa May’s position. The only ingredient missing was the killer blow to force her resignation. Two days after the election, Downing Street released a statement saying a deal with the DUP had been ‘agreed in principle’. The DUP denied any such deal, leading Downing Street to declare that their original statement had been issued ‘in error’. True or false, it hardly matters. May had been further compromised. She had now become so weak as to be immediately unchallengeable given the amount of seats the Tories held. The situation was too precarious for a leadership contest, a challenge that would likely have precipitated another general election given the Tories had no majority mandate to govern. A further election would run the risk of losing more seats and bringing Labour directly into play for forming the next government.

Next the Queen’s speech was delayed by a couple of days, with no agreement yet reached between the Tories and the DUP. A heightened sense of chaos began to simmer throughout the press. Theresa May was perceived as clinging on to power. As talks with the DUP progressed, May visited France to meet President Emmanuel Macron for the first time. Macron took the opportunity to remind May that ‘the door is open for a change of heart on leaving the EU, up to the end of negotiations’. Words that could be construed as a subtle warning – that the option was there to remain, that the EU reached out but the Conservatives ploughed on regardless.

As the Tory’s neared a deal with the DUP, Grenfell Tower block in West London was engulfed by fire. The presumed death toll as of writing stands at 80 (although this is heavily disputed by local residents). Soon afterwards the tragedy gained political significance. Some in the media suggested years of Tory austerity measures were a cause for the fire. Government ministers were accused of ignoring warnings about inadequate building regulations. Labour subsequently took advantage by mounting pressure on the Tories. As Jeremy Corbyn spoke with and embraced local residents, Theresa May visited the scene but engaged only with emergency workers. She was later booed and heckled after visiting people affected by the fire in hospital. According to former Tory MP Michael Portillo, she lacked ‘humanity’ in her response. May was granted a slight reprieve after inviting survivors of the fire to Downing Street for a meeting to quell some of the negative press that was enveloping her. Nevertheless, her authority had once again been undermined. Her election mantra of ‘strong and stable’ was consigned to refuge.

May was further tested days later after an attack at the Muslim Welfare House Mosque in Finsbury Park, where a white male ran down pedestrians. One person died. Jeremy Corbyn was quickly on the scene and spent time with people from the mosque. Theresa May was booed and heckled on her visit a short time later. The attack came twelve months after Labour MP Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair a week before the Brexit vote. This latest incident occurred on the same day Brexit negotiations officially began with the EU. As with Jo Cox’s killing, the broad term of ‘right wing extremism’ was touted as a cause.

Further criticism of May was forthcoming after the announcement that the 2018 Queen’s speech had been cancelled ‘to smooth the path for Brexit reforms.’ A two year parliamentary session was to be launched on June the 21st. Meanwhile, the deal with the DUP was said to be ‘95% done’.

After several days of quiet, the announcement finally came on a Tory deal with the DUP. Theresa May was inundated with disapproval. The ‘grubby’ deal, which sections of the media and the Labour party had proclaimed it as, held two key elements. Firstly, there would be an extra £1 billion investment in Northern Ireland infrastructure, which immediately incensed politicians and the public alike in England, Scotland and Wales. Secondly, the deal between the Conservatives and the DUP would be reviewed in 2019, at the time of the next Queen’s speech and when the UK is scheduled to leave the EU – with or without a trade deal.

***

Several theories have been circulating in the independent media about why the election played out as it did. One in particular is how the Tories were manipulated into a position of deliberately trying to throw the result to Labour, in what was a plan forged by globalists to derail the Brexit process and prevent the UK from leaving the European Union. Evidence cited for this was the Tories ‘suicidal’ manifesto which brought social care and public services into the spotlight, thus reducing the impact of Brexit as a key tenet of the election campaign.

Days after the election, former chancellor George Osborne (now editor at the London Evening Standard) declared Theresa May as a ‘dead woman walking‘, a line which independents and mainstream outlets have also run with. From my perspective, the fact that a weakened Conservative party are still in office is a signal that Brexit – a process which began under the Tories – is intended to remain their liability. Whether Theresa May lasts the course or not is secondary to how Brexit is identified overall.

Important to remember is that the stage for Brexit was constructed two years before this election in 2015, when David Cameron’s Conservatives secured a majority at the ballot box. Without this, the referendum would not have taken place a year later. The result secured a mandate for Cameron to go to the country and ask whether voters wished to remain or leave the EU. Ever since the leave vote, the media and self proclaimed ‘progressives’ on the left have been working diligently to convince their audience that the Brexit process belongs to the Conservatives. Outgoing Lib Dem leader Tim Farron recently labelled the Tories as the ‘Conservative Brexit Government.’

As I have detailed in previous posts, the neat dichotomy of Brexit being a right wing ‘populist’ movement and the ‘internationalist’ left being in opposition to it disintegrates on closer examination. Up to becoming Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn had spent thirty years as a back bencher decrying the European Union project. It is also a fact that the UK Communist Party declared their support for vacating the EU, as did the Socialist Workers Party. Brexit has never been the exclusive preserve of ‘reactionary’ forces. But that does not prevent people from either wanting to believe it or being propagandised into doing so.

Over the past ten months I have researched extensively the economic foundations that underpin not only Brexit but the Presidency of Donald Trump. During the Brexit vote, the Bank for International Settlements were gathering for their annual general meeting in Basel, Switzerland. On the same day as the U.S. election, the bank held a conference in Washington DC, in conjunction with the World Bank. Both elections witnessed a rise in ‘Conservatism’, with ‘populist’ sentiment (perceived as right wing) gaining a political foothold in the West. Months before Brexit, however, the IMF were publicly warning about the dangers of ‘populism’ and how Brexit would risk ‘severe regional and global damage’. Their warnings extended to the Federal Reserve, who cited Brexit as a reason for not raising interest rates just days before the referendum:

It is a decision that could have consequences for economic and financial conditions in global financial markets.

If it does so it could have consequences in turn for the US economic outlook that would be a factor in deciding on the appropriate path of policy.

George Soros also waded in through an opinion piece for The Guardian (The Brexit crash will make all of you poorer – be warned), as did Lord Jacob Rothschild (All the evidence shows that Brexit would be a disaster).

A year later, it has become routine practice in the media to label certain aspects of economic uncertainty as a consequence of Brexit or Donald Trump. For example, The Independent in the UK begins any downturn in UK output under the heading of ‘Brexit’. In the U.S. the likes of Bloomberg have made ballooning consumer debt a product of ‘Trump’s America’. What they care not to mention is how this self same debt grew exponentially under Barack Obama and the ‘Progressive’ ticket.

The message here is clear. Mainstream outlets and economic globalists want you and I to attribute any economic uncertainty as a result of Britain voting to leave the EU and Donald Trump being elected as President. And what are these two movements perceived to have in common? They both stem from the right of the false political paradigm. This is why shifting the responsibility for Brexit over to Labour would have made no logical sense from a globalist perspective. The Tories have to be seen as owning the process. ‘Reactionism’ is a concept identified as a tenet of conservatism. The ‘progressive’ ideology that Labour and the left covet is much more likely to come into play after an economic downturn, for which the right of the false paradigm will be held up as responsible for.

I see Brexit and Trump as a political symbiosis, one that is designed to implant stress within a dangerously leveraged economy that central banks are now preparing to withdraw stimulus from. The Federal Reserve are headlong into a course of interest rate hikes, with the UK likely to follow suit. Debt is becoming more expensive to service, which over time will have an impact on economic output. In Britain, Brexit is a perfectly placed patsy for pigeonholing all of the UK’s economic ills under.

When you observe what has transpired over the past year, the fact that a weakened and discredited Theresa May remains as Prime Minister is of no surprise. A couple of weeks after announcing the election, Emmanuel Macron was elected President of France. A result that was seen as unifying the EU and a defeat for the march of ‘nationalism’ in Europe. In other words, Brexit has become isolated. Much like May herself. Despite that, I do not believe that the intention here is to prevent the passage of Brexit.

Given that Brexit was from the outset an event of international significance (hence the coordinated actions from central banks), the current period of negotiations will provide a perpetual point of stress in the global economy. A fact that institutions such as the BIS and IMF have consistently foretold. It will have the power to turn market sentiment to the downside should negotiations flounder or result in the UK leaving the EU without a ‘deal’. The actions of Donald Trump and his administration, whilst having no visible impact on the stock market, will also eventually seep into investor sentiment as the Federal Reserve’s program of hiking rates and winding down their balance sheet progresses.

Behind both Brexit and Trump are the central banks, who under the directive of the Bank for International Settlements are now forcefully advancing their narrative of ‘normalising monetary policy’. Their actions have resulted in the biggest asset bubbles in economic history. Central banks now hold an estimated $15 trillion plus in ‘assets’ on their balance sheets. The Federal Reserve accounts for $4.5 trillion of these ‘assets’, whilst the Bank of England continues for the time being with its quantitative easing programme. The scale of intervention from central banks since the crash of 2008 has now begun to achieve the aims of globalists. The ‘global recovery’ narrative, though falsified, has been successfully utilised now for many years. Nevertheless, institutions like the BIS and the IMF persist in tempering this recovery with caution. They do this by speaking of unexpected ‘tailwinds’ in the economy, and the ever present danger of ‘political uncertainty’ that could jeopardise what is often spoken of as a fragile recovery.

The only thing that has so far prevented global economies from collapsing under the weight of debt is the stimulus programmes of central banks. I do not believe it to be a coincidence that Brexit and Trump came to prominence as central banks were preparing to tighten monetary policy. Both events have to be considered within an international context to understand the true economic significance.

In 1988, it was The Economist magazine (of which Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild of the Rothschild family sits on the board) who warned the world to ‘Get Ready For A World Currency by 2018‘. Central banks have been striving for decades to further centralise the world economic system. The political uncertainty that globalist institutions have warned about has arrived, on either side of the Atlantic. And the ‘headwinds’ of this uncertainty will automatically spread throughout the globe, given the interconnectedness of financial markets.

Whilst the furore over Brexit gathers momentum, and the ideologically driven on both the right and the left slug it out, the danger is that central banks and their gatekeepers will escape inquisition for their actions. ‘Normalising monetary policy‘ is a prelude to economic decline. The question now is who will the average man on the street blame for an economic downturn in the months and years ahead. The central banks? Or political ‘earthquakes‘ designed to distract away from their actions?

Brexit and Trump are the two scapegoats that the globalists hope you and I will hold responsible.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s