Posted on 10/24/2022 1:10:55 PM PDT by RandFan
Today is a truly “historic” day for the United Kingdom. However, once you get past his outer layer, newly enshrined British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is nothing more than the latest version of a WEF-designed (World Economic Forum) prime minister robot.
He is the same version as Justin Trudeau, but programmed with different talking points. This “conservative” politician, whose agenda seeks the same endgame as his liberal opponents, promotes the globalist Malthusian ideals currently inundating the anglosphere and the greater Western world.
He’s well spoken, well educated, and he checks the “historic” box not because of any ideas he may have, but purely because of his ethnic background. Most importantly, Rishi Sunak does not appear to possess a single independent thought. Nobody outside of his inner circle knows what he actually believes. Rishi Sunak follows the script.
Rishi Sunak was groomed for this moment for decades. This Oxford-educated politician was kept far away from the filthy “working class.” He promotes an agenda that seeks to serve the already established global ruling class, but would surely impose ruin upon the rest of humanity.
Sunak is a passionate advocate for the deindustrialization campaign known as “net zero.” He recently cut a promo for the World Economic Forum stressing his commitment to the climate hoax. “The challenge of climate change is clear, and it is urgent. We need to ensure a positive and fair transition to net zero,” Sunak said in the video.
The newly enshrined PM also supports the continuing centralization of society, through the installation of political and financial surveillance through Digital ID, a Chinese Community Party-like Social Credit Score system, and a Central Bank Digital Currency system. According to reports, his billionaire in laws are heavily invested in surveillance and digital identity schemes.
(Excerpt) Read more at dossier.substack.com ...
📂
Another Antichrist candidate for the list.
Was Liz Truss any better? I never understood British parliamentary politics really well. How can they just throw out someone and replace them with another. Was it the party that threw Truss out? Don’t people vote in the UK?
Horrifying that he’s the next PM. Their (WEF) goals are terrifying ( or would be if I wasn’t a Christian!)
Another “conservative”
🙄🙄🙄
Dunno if he is a ‘bot’ but he is certainly huge globalist given his own investment, etc. portfolio and that of his parents/in-laws.
People vote for members of the Commons. Then those members elect prime minister who has similar executive powers as POTUS. So people do not elect prime minister directly. This same system exists in all previous commonwealth countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, etc.
Another WEF stooge for the UK
My only thought is that Truss HAD to be better. The course of events seems to indicate that recovery for Britain could NOT be tolerated.
King = WEF commie
Then how do ppl get elected to the House of Lords? Or are they appointed?
Never mind. I googled it and although I learned a lot, it’s still terribly confusing as far as the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, etc. 🤯
Rishi Sunak is a typical British name.....
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak => Stanford University Product
Like anything else was going to happen?
AFAIK House of Lord’s members are elected in specific districts, just like our senators have different districts (states) than house representatives.
Might as well have an argument on the Titanic over what drapes should be put up.
Our system is far less complicated than the American one. Entropy was ALMOST right:
People vote for members of Parliament - there are 650 seats based on geographical areas called constituencies.
Although any candidate can be independent, they tend to stand on a party ticket - unless they can afford to self-fund.
Liz Truss ended up a Conservative member of Parliament - but go back far enough and she was a Liberal Democrat. Nobody really contests this because there's no ideological purity test for joining a political party of any persuasion. New Labour was full of people who were "small c" conservatives and in fact several Tories jumped ship to Labour in the Blair years.
This is all the consequence of the failure of "conviction politics" (people going into politics because they actually believed in stuff) and the rise of the "professional politician" (who typically went to public school, Oxford/Cambridge, maybe Harvard or Stanford in the USA, studied either journalism or PPE, and got an MBA while working in the City of London.) In days gone by this was called the "old school tie" and it permeates politics.
I could list dozens of examples but picking the most obvious ones:
- Theresa May and Damian Green have been lifelong friends, pre-dating their careers
- Tony Blair and Lord Falconer were flatmates while working as barristers
- Boris Johnson and David Cameron were rivals at Eton, and in the Bullingdon Club
Parties have their own procedures for leadership selection. With the Tories, their process involves asking the party membership (which includes most high-rolling donors) as well as the MPs - which sounds great until you realise that significant numbers of their members and some of their biggest donors are either foreign nationals or tax havenites - the list has previously included several Russian oligarchs.
The leader of the largest party (if it has a technical majority) becomes Prime Minister - but the leader is meant to be "first among equals". Each Prime Minister nominates department heads and ministers, called the Cabinet, and the Cabinet has collective responsibility. If a Cabinet minister disagrees with the collective position, it's usually considered the done thing to resign. (Robin Cook famously resigned rather than support Blair's Cabinet in the Iraq War). There's another factor - for Tories, the 1922 Committee allows their MPs (if enough of them complain) to force the leader to "consider their position". And that's what has happened with Margaret Thatcher, Theresa May, and now Liz Truss.
Another thing to remember is, most politicians who are hailed as conservatives - Farage being a prime example - are professional bankers and city spivs turned politician, not conviction politicians. They're careerist technocrats just like Sunak; they made their money out of hedging like he did, they're really not that ideological. They're just much better at crafting a persona.
Farage has been in more parties than Boris in Number 10.
Jacob Rees-Mogg camps it up like the bowler-hatted bloke in old black-and-white movies.
Boris, ten years ago, would've been dismissed as a pro-European internationalist woke buffoon.
Norman Lamont was a massive Brexiteer, who hedged against Brexit (as did JRM and Farage).
None of them are conviction politicians. Probably the last party leader we had who was a conviction politican, was Jeremy Corbyn - ironically he was let go because he wanted lasting peace with Russia, thought we'd been assholes to too many countries in the Middle East, and thought we needed a "national investment bank" to invest in upgrading our creaking infrastructure while we could borrow at literally half a cent on the dollar.
He was declared incompetent by a party whose runaway spending during COVID made his "national investment bank" proposition look like loose change down the back of the sofa, and that party crashed the economy far worse than Corbyn ever could've done by offering tax cuts to the richest 10% and massive subsidies to industry WITH NO SPENDING CONSTRAINTS. But the Tory Party is "the professional" party and is allegedly the "party of fiscal responsibility", so obviously it isn't possible for a rank amateur to have a more credible economic policy than Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng...
In the event that someone who's the opposite of Corbyn - a true conservative - runs for office, the whole professional political class will unite to tear him or her down. So that is something the USA and UK have in common.
Here lies the problem - if you've got both the first and second in command ideologically in the right place but both are completely innumerate - like Truss and Kwarteng were - they have to listen to the OBR and other people, otherwise they'll crash the UK economy quicker than two Marxists on a spending spree. Truss is out because she made Corbyn look economically competent.
No, the House of Lords is appointed. It was MEANT to be independently appointed but some hundred years ago or so, one of our Prime Ministers came up with the brilliant idea of stuffing it full of life peers (”Lords Temporal”) who were party donors and ex-ministers as well as notable businesspersons, benefactors, charity heads, the guy who ran the best pub in the Prime Minister’s village, etc.
Law Lords (”Lords of Appeal in Ordinary”) focus on civil law cases or resolving points of law. Think of a Law Lord as being a member of an appeals court - it’s more complicated than that.
The Lords Spiritual are made up of the Archbishops and other selected bishops of the Church of England.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.