Besides, it is not about British voters and what they want:
ZIONISM IS THE WINNER IN BRITISH ELECTIONS
Yeah, my Zionist AmeriKan MSM calls it the "market."
"Brown fights for life down homestretch
Sorry, the page you have requested does not exist at this address.
- If you are trying to reach a Boston.com page from a bookmark, the address may have changed, or the page may have been eliminated. Please use the sections above to browse for what you're looking for, or visit our home page.
- You can find articles by using the search box above, or by going to our Search page.
- If you need immediate assistance, please visit our Help Center or contact us by filling out our feedback form.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
-- Your friends at Boston.comWeb version: Britain’s candidates address sick economy (By Sarah Lyall, New York Times)
And why the same story makes the version the next day, well... all I can say is censorship.
Britain’s candidates address sick economy (By Sarah Lyall, New York Times)
I'm not reading it for obvious reasons.
"Britain's candidates agree: This race is wide open" by Raphael G. Satter, Associated Press Writer | April 30, 2010
LONDON --Divided over the country's ballooning debt, the economy and the contentious issue of immigration, the three front runners in Britain's general election can still agree on one thing: This race is anyone's to win....
Even Britain's ever-optimistic former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who hit the campaign trail Friday in support of his successor, Gordon Brown, could only say that their governing Labour Party "has every chance of succeeding."
They spelled his name wrong: it is B-L-I-A-R, BLIAR!!!
Related: Slow Saturday Special: Brown Blames U.S. For Iraq
Yeah, that war criminal Bliar isn't going to help things.
But none of the candidates provided detailed economic recovery plans in a nation that faces major economic troubles and one of the largest deficits in Europe -- both of which will require harsh cuts in public spending after the election.
Related: Unions warn of Greek-style riots in Britain
Labour had more bad luck Friday, when a car crashed into a bus shelter as the prime minister and several members of his Cabinet launched a new poster campaign nearby. No one was hurt in the incident, but evening TV newscasts captured Brown deputy Peter Mandelson's speech briefly interrupted by a loud screech followed by the sound of a crash.
Pressed by a journalist, Mandelson denied that the incident was a metaphor for Labour's election campaign.
Labour got even worse news when The Guardian newspaper announced its support for the Liberal Democrats and The Times of London backed the Tories.
The right-leaning Times' endorsement of the Conservatives was no surprise, but Labour's loss of the left-leaning Guardian was more damaging....
--more--""As Britons head to polls, some predict a splintered government" by Anthony Faiola and Dan Balz, Washington Post | May 6, 2010
LONDON — British voters head to the polls today after a volatile and closely contested four-week campaign, with signs pointing to an outcome that could produce the most fragile government in a generation.
Observers fear that the emergence of a divided Parliament in Britain could undermine attempts to slash the country’s huge budget deficit and perhaps spark a Greek-like debt crisis. Overdrawn Spain and Portugal face similar crises of confidence.
Yeah, that's coming to you, me and the rest of the banker-controlled western economies. They plan to wreck them to further their New World Order.
Despite the anticipated messiness of the result here, none of the potential winners is likely to bring about a significant shift in transatlantic ties. The major parties have pledged to keep British troops in Afghanistan and to cooperate with Washington on issues from financial regulation reform to the Middle East peace process.
Then why all the intrigue and press?
The latest opinion polls put the Conservative Party — which has been out of power for 13 years — within reach of a majority in the House of Commons but just shy of enough seats to seal the deal. If the Conservatives fall short, their leader, David Cameron, could become Britain’s youngest prime minister in nearly two centuries, though he would head a minority government susceptible to buckling in the coming months under opposition pressure.
In the closing hours of the campaign yesterday, Cameron assured voters that he represents the change they are seeking from the unpopular Labor prime minister, Gordon Brown. Portraying the Conservative Party as more “compassionate’’ — under Cameron, it has embraced gay rights and more environmental policies — he disputed Brown’s claims that it remains the “same old party’’ of Margaret Thatcher....
Oh, big whoop. He buys into the gay and global fart mist movements, yaaaay!
Yet the race for No. 10 Downing St. could still shift in any number of directions, potentially being decided by backroom deals that could take days to hash out. In a country defined by tribal politics — where Labor or Conservative affiliations can be as important as one’s soccer team — the political future also appeared to depend on whether millions of Labor voters fed up with Brown would switch their votes or simply stay home....
That sure is an insult to you, isn't it, Britons?
I didn't know you were third-worlders -- yet.
Yesterday, Brown — who stumbled badly on the campaign trail last week after he was caught off-camera calling a widowed retiree a bigot — was still trying to shore up his campaign.
Related: Gordon Brown Steps in S***
Yeah, that is hard to get off the shoe, isn't it, Gordo?
His best shot remained a possible deal with Nicholas Clegg, the dark horse from the perennially third-place Liberal Democrats whose surge in the polls after Britain’s first ever televised election debate has made him a potential kingmaker.
Though support for Clegg appeared to be leveling, his Liberal Democrats were still on track to make the best showing of any third party in Britain since the 1970s....
Clegg brushed aside a question from the audience about the negotiations that might begin if no party emerges from today’s vote with a parliamentary majority.
“There are 45 million people in this country who are entitled to vote — 45 million kingmakers,’’ he said, “I’m not a kingmaker. Not David Cameron. Not Gordon Brown. You’re the boss. You tell us what you want.’’--more--"
"Conservatives take slim lead in Britain vote; Labor hints at negotiating coalition rule" by John F Burns, New York Times | May 7, 2010
LONDON — After one of the most passionately contested elections in decades, voters in Britain went to the polls yesterday and appeared to have swung sharply, though not necessarily decisively, against the ruling Labor Party.
Early results from 650 House of Commons constituencies across the country pointed to a strong performance by the opposition Conservative Party led by David Cameron, though the size of the increase in the Conservative vote raised doubts about its ability to win the majority it needed to be sure of regaining power after 13 years of Labor rule.
What seemed sure was that the Conservatives would win the largest number of seats, probably dozens more than Labor, with the third party, the left-of-center Liberal Democrats, trailing. But without a majority, Cameron — and the country — could be heading for days of agonizing uncertainty as the two main parties set about trying to outmaneuver each other for power.
The first results announced showed a sharp swing from Labor to the Conservatives in seats in northern England that had been Labor strongholds for decades. Early returns from central and southern England suggested a similarly strong shift to the Conservatives — in one case of more than 9 percent — that some analysts said pointed to the possibility of a clear Conservative majority.
Pollsters had said before the vote that a nationwide swing of 7 percent in the Conservatives’ favor might be enough for a majority. The vote count showed a swing to the Conservatives ranging from 5 percent to 11 percent.
But powerful figures in the Labor Party lost no time in setting out a rationale for hanging on to power, even if the party finished far behind the Conservatives in the number of Commons seats. Peter Mandelson, an influential Cabinet colleague of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Labor’s chief political strategist, said that Labor had “the right to seek to form a government’’ by seeking support from other parties if the Conservatives fell short of a majority.
That pointed to a bid by Labor to form a coalition, or some other arrangement, with the Liberal Democrats. But early returns suggested that the preelection poll surge registered by Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats’ leader, had not translated into votes, at least not on anything like the scale many commentators had forecast.
That posed a problem for Labor, since a Liberal Democrat showing that produced only as many seats, 62, as they won in 2005, or perhaps somewhat more, might leave Labor and the Liberal Democrats combined with barely as many seats as the Conservatives.
In what appeared to be an opening bid for the Liberal Democrats’ support, Mandelson said that a fairer voting system should replace the existing one that resulted in smaller parties like the Liberal Democrats generally winning far fewer seats, proportionally, than the popular vote share....
The Labor attitude outraged leading Conservatives. “The idea of Gordon Brown hanging onto power, after being so decisively rejected, is frankly shocking,’’ said George Osborne, who as shadow chancellor of the exchequer would assume management of Britain’s battered economy in the event of the Conservatives’ taking power. Citing the plunge in share prices on Wall Street yesterday, Osborne said “Britain will need a stable and responsible government’’ in the choppy months ahead for the British economy, not a fragile coalition led by a party that had faced “a massive rejection’’ at the polls.
Although British election campaigns last for barely a month, a fraction of the time that it takes to elect an American president, vote counting can be a protracted, through-the-night affair, as in the United States.
Election analysts said a clear picture of the overall seat count would not likely be available much before dawn in Britain today, and that in a close finish between the two parties, results from some outlying areas, such as distant parts of Scotland, could take much longer.
The BBC reported that the national turnout appeared to have been substantially higher than in the last election in 2005.Who cares? What a PoS filler from the NYT!
--more--"
Meet their sister shitter of the AmeriKan MSM:
"Pressure mounts on UK leaders; Conservatives reach out to form coalition" by Anthony Faiola and Dan Balz, Washington Post | May 8, 2010
LONDON — Britain headed into the weekend yesterday without a new leader as the Conservative Party’s David Cameron scrambled to fashion a working government after voters produced this nation’s most divided Parliament in decades.
Final results from Thursday’s election showed Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Labor Party suffering its worst defeat in 80 years, but Conservative gains fell short of a clear majority, setting up a hung Parliament after 13 years of Labor rule. Cameron and Brown were openly courting coalition deals with Nick Clegg, of the third-place Liberal Democrats, in rival bids for power. In a blow to Brown, Clegg signaled his intention to negotiate with the Conservatives first.
The pressure to act fast was becoming intense. The debt emergency in Greece has ignited fears of a new stage in the global financial crisis, and the political stalemate in heavily indebted Britain was heightening concerns that the country could become the next target of investor panic.
The SUN FINALLY SETTING of what tatters remained of the British Empire, 'eh?
Yesterday, the pound hit a one-year low against the dollar, dropping even against the battered euro. A key stock index tied to Britain’s domestic economy shed more than 4 percent, and British bonds came under fresh pressure. Broader financial turmoil could wash ashore next week if the political impasse persists, as some now predict it will, for days....
Though the predicted surge of Clegg’s Liberal Democrats did not materialize — they actually lost five seats Thursday — Britain’s third party nevertheless emerged holding the balance of power....
I smell a f***ing rigging!
Related: British Blather
PFFFT!
"The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports how diplomats in the Israeli embassy heaved a sigh of relief when they heard about Clegg’s poor showing on election day. They feared the Liberal Democrats would not be such a soft touch as the two main parties."
So WHO GOT to the MACHINES?
--more--"
"Bid to form coalition stalls in Britain; Talks resume amid financial market worries" by John F. Burns, New York Times | May 9, 2010
LONDON — Talks about forming a new government resumed yesterday amid concern that continuing uncertainty would shake world financial markets when they reopen tomorrow, but the prospects of a deal between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats by that deadline appeared slim.
As an intensive round of negotiations among the parties’ power brokers began yesterday, the Conservatives appeared strongly resistant to the Liberal Democrats’ main demand: a change in the voting system to help smaller parties gain representation in future parliamentary elections....
At this point it begins to becoming a rewrite.
The most that David Cameron, the Conservative leader, seemed ready to concede was that the voting system, and other electoral measures, could be considered by an all-party parliamentary committee, a mechanism that has failed to institute changes in the past.
The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, seemed divided over seeking a union with the Conservatives or with the Labor Party, which many among the left-leaning Liberal Democrats see as more philosophically compatible than the Conservatives.
Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, spoke by telephone on Friday evening with the Labor leader, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Clegg’s aides said. No details were disclosed.
Although more talks are set for today, Clegg appeared to be signaling yesterday that voters should not expect a decision today. He said he would not be driven by artificial timetables, including the concern that failure to reach a deal could put new pressure on the pound and on the yields demanded by investors for the bonds that finance the enormous government deficit....
But if the Liberal Democrats seemed likely to balk at any pact with the Conservatives without movement on the voting system, they faced a stumbling block of potentially even greater magnitude in establishing a coalition government with Labor and its widely unpopular leader, Brown.
Despite misgivings among his party’s rank and file, Clegg has won widespread plaudits from many of Britain’s major newspapers for sticking to a campaign pledge to negotiate first with the Conservatives, on the basis that they had earned the first right to try to form a government by winning the most seats and votes.
The Conservatives took 306 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons, 20 seats short of a majority. After 13 years in power, Labor won just 258 seats, posting its worst election performance since 1931.--more--"
"UK parties have ‘mountain to climb’ for power pact; Uncertainty adds to finance market fears; Divide gives slim hope to Labor" by Sylvia Hui, Associated Press | May 10, 2010
LONDON — The two parties that could form Britain’s next government held hours of closed-door talks yesterday without reaching a power-sharing deal, and there were fears that the political uncertainty could stoke market jitters when trading reopens today.
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have a “mountain to climb’’ on issues including an electoral overhaul, a senior member of the Liberal Democrats said.
The Liberal Democrats want Britain to shed a system that gave them just 9 percent of the seats in Parliament after they won 23 percent of the popular vote, but if Conservatives give in it could leave them at the smaller party’s mercy in future elections.
The divide could offer an opening for Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s Labor Party to stay in power through a coalition with the Liberal Democrats and some smaller parties.
As if it mattered.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg met with Conservative leader David Cameron last night, after meeting with Brown during the afternoon for what a Liberal Democrat party spokesman said was an “amicable discussion.’’
A deal must be brokered soon to calm financial market anxieties about Britain’s economic stability.
You SEE WHO MATTERS, British voters?
Yeah, it AIN'T YOU!!!!!!
“We’re very conscious of the need to provide the country with a new stable and legitimate government as soon as possible,’’ William Hague, Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, told reporters before disappearing into London’s Cabinet Office for negotiations with senior Liberal Democrats.
After six hours of negotiations, Hague emerged to announce that the two parties agreed that they should focus on economic stability and reducing the ballooning budget deficit. More talks were planned for today, he said.
The prospect of days of political horse-trading has fueled anxiety in financial markets already unsettled by the Greek debt crisis.
Ye$, and THAT I$ WHO MATTER$ ABOVE ALL EL$E!
Fears that an unstable government could delay Britain’s ability to tackle a record deficit dragged the FTSE 100 share index 2.6 percent lower Friday, while the British pound was sharply down.
“With the markets being highly nervous and fragile in the wake of the Greek crisis and in the mood to penalize any country that is perceived to be falling short on its deficit reduction needs, it is of paramount importance that a credible commitment on how to tackle the dire UK public finances is in place sooner rather than later,’’ said Howard Archer, chief UK and European economist at IHS Global Insight....
Banks with a HEART of GOLD, huh?
See: The Banks That Have Hearts
Must have stolen it.
Cameron and Clegg also would have to compromise on their positions toward Europe. Clegg’s party is in favor of Britain eventually joining the euro currency, a policy Cameron’s bloc bitterly opposes.
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats agree on the need for spending cuts, although Cameron wants a more aggressive pace of austerity measures. The two also have similar policies on cutting taxes for the lowest-paid British workers. Both have pledged action on civil liberties and scrapping Britain’s planned national identity card program.
Both are committed to keeping British troops in Afghanistan, at least in the short term, and both have signaled they may take a more skeptical tone in relations to the White House. Cameron previously attacked as “slavish’’ the links Tony Blair and Brown have shared with Washington.
I'm not buying that last bit.
And THE BRITISH PEOPLE WANT THEM OUT, anyone tell you that in your "democracy?"
Meanwhile, Brown remains in power — and will continue to reside in his Downing Street office until it becomes clear that Cameron can form a new government....
Who gives a s*** what that fat f*** had to say?
--more--"
He was not hoping long....
"Brown to resign as Britain’s prime minister; Vows exit in Sept. to sweeten Labor bid for coalition" by Paisley Dodds, Associated Press | May 11, 2010
LONDON — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a dramatic bid yesterday to keep his beleaguered Labor Party in power after it fell far short in elections last week, announcing he will resign by September at the latest even if the Liberal Democrats — being wooed by the Conservatives — decide to join his party in government.
The political theater, played out in front of the iconic black door of No. 10 Downing Street....
Yeah, so much of that is IN MY PAPER it MAKES ME SICK!
While uncertainty prevails, to the displeasure of the markets, one thing appears certain: The career of Brown — the Treasury chief who waited a decade in the wings for his chance to become prime minister — is winding to an end....
You AGAIN SEE WHO MATTERS, right?
Brown said Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had asked to begin formal coalition talks with the Labor Party and said he believed their parties might form a center-left alliance. Clegg had previously suggested Brown’s departure would probably be a condition of any deal with Labor.
The Liberal Democrats have seemed genuinely open to a deal with the Conservatives — who are less ideologically compatible with them than with Labor — largely out of a sense that Cameron won a moral mandate and supporting him was expected by the nation at a time of economic turmoil.
But Brown’s statement appeared to give Clegg’s party a viable alternative, and real temptation: Join a possibly short-lived alliance, remove the unpopular Brown, and pass electoral reform that could transform their fortunes and even banish the Conservatives to the political wilderness.Does it really matter whose coalition it is?
All be SERVING the SAME INTERESTS!
--more--"
