The new ICM Poll puts Conservatives on 40% and Labour on 31%, up from 29%, borrowing 1% from Lib Dems and 1% from Others. It doesn't shout at you as being extremely outrageous, and yet I have my doubts.
The problem is that, again just as last time, the narrative saying this is the new trend that would happen, preceded the poll. which is all a tad suspicious to my mind.
HPN1 (Hung Parliament Narrative 1) originated from Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine in November, hard on the heels of Cameron's post-Lisbon policy announcement. This narrative was then picked up and run with by all media, yet the polls were, at that time, saying a Conservative Majority of 60.
Then out of the blue, as if to order, came Ipsos MORI's 6% Conservative lead based on a tiny sample (London was 53, where Labour were awarded a large majority), and HPN1 went mainstream in all media, as if, all along, it had been the only story in town. It wasn't. It was a dramatic change.
The next narrative, HPN2, released a week ago, was in fact a Labour victory narrative. It appeared in The Times, sourced from Labour Election Planners. This stated that the current 8% Conservative lead (which in some polls was still given as 17%) could be overturned by Election Day to 0%, with 5% of Lib Dems and 3% of Others returning to Labour. This was another stunning change, notionally eliminating a once 20% Conservative polling lead to zero, all within a year, and yet that was not even mentioned.
The HNP2 narrative was repeated yesterday, as the ICM Poll came out showing this exact trend, with Lib Dems switiching to Labour and also Others switching to Labour, exactly as predicted the week before.
If the process happened the other way around, I would be a little happier. If first came the supposedly scientific test - the poll - and then the narrative based on its findings, the interpretation, came second, I would not be so sceptical.
But this is like East Anglian University Climate Forecasting. You first decide what result you want, and then you match your findings accordingly to give it. Iraqi WMD comes to mind as another example.
All such distortions of scientific data have a purpose. That purpose is the exercise of power. Money comes from Climate Taxes. War from wrong military intelligence, and electoral advantage would comes from 'polling to order', were that indeed also happening.
The polls and the narratives that appear to inform them, are, in my opinion, now being designed for one purpose - to prepare expectations for election results. Achieving the actual election results they desire, presents the controllers with no difficulty, and can be achieved by postal vote exercises and ballot box handling processes easily enough, but the result that is delivered, can only be delivered if the public don't suspect that anything is untoward about it.
People still believe that the electoral system is working, so the controllers have to carry on with the fiction. In other countries they don't even bother pretending, which in a few years time, will no doubt also be the case in Britain. But right now it controls people more successfully that the fiction of electoral fairness is continued with, for as long as people are still prepared to believe in it.
By a continual drip drip in the media of an expected election result over many months, cleverly disguised in polling trends which are created to order, and through narratives in support, the public can be prepared for the electoral result that the election controllers desire.
That way the public's acquiescence in their own enslavement can be more surely achieved. There is no need for a dramatic throwing out of all MPs from Parliament and the surrounding of the Palace Of Westminster with troops. The process of disempowering MPs and the destruction of democracy can be far more assuredly achieved by sinister behind-the-scenes tampering, which few even realise is happening. By the time they do, it will all be over.
Since Cameron's Lisbon address, he has worried the controllers with his talk of repatriation of powers and a Soveriegnty Bill. They are no longer prepared to grant him an election victory, and ever since that moment all the narratives have been changed accordingly.
Did Cameron break cover too early? I don't think he had a choice. His pre-Lisbon stance was easier to disguise, but Lisbon was over, and he had to make himself clear.
The controllers really want a Labour victory to keep the EU safe, while all the power structures are set up which will ensure Britain is locked in, but the swinging of expectations to that extent, is probably deemed impossible at this stage, although they are trying to go as far as a Labour Victory Narrative if they can.
The Hung Parliament narratives are, for now, the ones being deployed, and the public are gradually being prepared for Cameron's removal from the game of political theatre, while the controllers seek out a new safer pair of hands to 'lead' the Conservative Party - the next Blair, who will agree to all the controllers demand in return for personal advancement, which was what they thought they had in Cameron.
The public are not likely to see that any of what is being done, as they are unable to contemplate that things have gone so far. The evidence does not comply with the conventional explanations of politics. It does, however, comply with the explanation I give, does it not?
PICTURE - Hat Tip - politicalbetting.com
No comments:
Post a Comment