Author: brexitglory

Earlier today the EU published it’s negotiation directives, along with a note from chief negotiator Michel Barnier. Thankfully, the Telegraph has done the reading and identified the main points of what will shape the future relationship. The UK negotiation directives remain unpublished (or more likely, under construction) but the government’s position can be somewhat interpreted by the (unconfirmed) leaked coalition deal and the Conservative manifesto; both of which are remarkably vague.

Governance

The EU negotiation directives are clear throughout that the envisioned partnership should be wrapped up into one deal. EU negotiators are keen to avoid another Switzerland scenario of ad hoc deals, one they have been working on remedying. The UK should not accept this demand outright and should be cautious of how it gives the EU the ability to punish the UK throughout the agreement, using a framework-wide dispute settlement. The EU does however admit that “supplementary” deals are likely to be needed as well as periodic review.

Level playing field

The directives pretty much start by emphasising how important a “level playing field” (LPF) is to the EU. The EU seeks to “uphold corresponding high levels of protection over time”. If the UK wants free access to the Single Market, then it will no be allowed to undercut the competition within the EU. This will include state aid rules, environmental regulations and worker’s rights. The LPF is likely to be an area of contention as Eurosceptic Conservatives would prefer the UK to have the ability to diverge from these standards, as well as not wanting direct ECJ oversight in the UK. It also puts into question if the UK has honoured the Single Market referendum if it ends up taking too many of it’s regulations. That being said, the Eurosceptics are likely to have to budge somewhat if the Government wants “as much access as possible” as cited in the leaked coalition deal.

Given that the UK consistently spends less on state aid than Germany, France and Spain, as well as often having stronger worker’s rights; disputes of this kind could be few and far between. There is certainly a landing zone here for an EU-UK FTA; more on this later.

Regulatory alignment

After the SM referendum, and the general direction of what the UK wants, the EU seems to not be expecting the government to agree to it’s regulations. There will have to be a regulatory border, for things like product standards, between the EU and the UK.

However, there may be some regulations that the EU insist on more such as animal products. If the UK wishes to import animal products from the United States in a post brexit trade deal, this may make trading difficult with the EU. On the other hand, the UK may well be happy to accept the maintenance of current standards, but will again be sceptical of direct ECJ intervention.

Fisheries

There is no doubt that fishing rights in UK waters will be a big issue in the upcoming negotiations. The EU is demanding that fisheries are included in the wider framework of the deal, the amount of access to UK waters maintained with their long term access guaranteed from the start. This would not be a wise thing for the British negotiations to allow on a whim. The EU has many communities that rely on fishing in UK waters, especially in the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. Currently the EU fishes around 60% of the fish caught in British waters, it is not something they want to give up.

However, UK negotiators will be mistaken if they think they have a lot to gain here. Fishing makes up for 0.1% of the British economy and while that could grow, the UK also exports 80% of it’s catches to the EU. While British negotiators should seek to take back our sovereignty over our waters, if we shut the EU out we will face retaliation tariffs on the extra catch; or we will have to start eating lots of fish we don’t normally eat.

Where is the landing zone?

There are plenty of other parts to this deal, from defence cooperation to transport, from energy to data. All of these are important and will be subjects to further telegraph pieces. The above parts of the deal are the areas that will define the future trading relationship. A landing zone on this is certainly possible, but must take in key premises: both sides want to remove tariffs, the UK wants to retain sovereignty from the ECJ and the EU wants to protect itself from being undercut now or in the future, especially on state aid.

Throughout the directives the EU put emphasis on the “geographic proximity” of the UK, which explains why they are more insistent on the LPF than they were with the CFTA with Canada. One way to get around this would be for the EU to leave some tariffs in place, as they did with Canada, especially their more sensitive ones. The UK could then deviate from the LPF but not undercut the EU as the most sensitive tariffs would remain on places. This option is far from ideal however but negotiators will have it in their back pocket if talks of greater ambition break down. The tariffs that the EU is most sensitive about are often animal products, that the UK exports to the EU in great numbers. And again, due to the “geographic proximity” tariffs that the EU felt it could forgo with Canada, may need to remain in place with the UK.

A more ambitious option would involve the EU moving off of its red lines (as it already knows) on the LPF. On environment and labour laws this is somewhat easier. The EU mostly wants overall standards not to fall, the UK can claim it has gotten it’s sovereignty back (on something they don’t wish to change much anyway) if they can change individual regulations.

On state aid the EU directives are more strict, stating: “The envisaged partnership should ensure the application of Union State aid rules to and in the United Kingdom.”. This poses a particular problem for the UK as it will be direct EU control and ECJ ruling in the UK. There is no easy solution to this other than some sort of mechanism to keep within broader limits of EU state aid rules, without direct ECJ rulings. The EU must recognise that direct ECJ ruling in the UK is not going to be acceptable. Both sides will have to move of their red lines on state aid, especially the UK.

UK negotiators would be wise to be accepting of whatever dispute resolution mechanism arises, which will likely have some involvement of the ECJ. At the same time, the EU directives talk of “remedies” when referring to unfair competition. The EU will want to have trade defense mechanisms alongside the dispute resolution. So if the UK unfairly subsidises an industry that affects trade with the EU, then they can put in retaliatory measures to balance it out. These mechanisms will allow for the UK to regain it’s sovereignty, while not having to be subject to EU rules in areas that do not affect the EU. From the EU’s perspective, the threat of a laissez-fair international trading tycoon off the English channel is somewhat neutralised.

On fisheries the British negotiators would be foolish to so easily give in to the EU’s total demands. The British should instead look to regain total sovereignty, but be aware of the likely compromise that they will have to guarantee something. Most likely, there would be an agreed amount of minimum EU access that is less than their amount of access now. The EU wants to make any access guarantee permanent in the framework of the deal, this is not something the UK should accept unless the EU compromises heavily elsewhere (which they will not do, nor should they). Instead the two sides could agree with annual negotiations on the actual access limit, with that minimum access hard wired into the deal. This will allow the UK to have sovereignty and control, while the EU’s fishing can continue disrupted.

This is ambitious and there is little time to do this. It’s impossible to say where these negotiations will end, especially with the UK negotiation directives still secret. Much of the final landing zone will be decided by the next government. A wise government now would not wait to get to the negotiating table and angle the negotiations towards their vision for brexit, withholding key cards such as defence and security, alongside enacting vigorous preparations in every government department for a no-deal exit. The British negotiation directives

BrexitGlory is a political pundit and journalist, specialising in Labour party politics and the Brexit negotiations.

In yet another challenge for Labour’s new leadership (election loss fallout, leaks and coalition deal failure being the others), the nationalist SNP has bizarrely, yet successfully, merged into the unionist Labour. This will likely cause internal party tensions between the staunch unionists and the new (and old) nationalist members. The SNP were criticised for betraying the independence movement, and leaving it with no representation. Now, an unlikely hero has stepped up in the name of The People’s Movement.

The People’s Movement were part of the SNP but rejected the merger into Labour and have now formed Sinn Fhèin. In a launch statement the party stated:

“We are maintaining our principles of libertarian socialism, the abolishment of hierarchies, and a commitment to the right of self-determination which will ensure better lives for the people of Scotland.”

Reaffirming themselves as a nationalist party. The full launch statement can be found here: Sinn Fhèin launch statement.

The merger leaves just one MSP in a nationalist party, /u/14derry, taking the full burden of representing Scottish nationalists that the SNP abandoned. The MP made the following statement to the Telegraph:

“I’m happy that I’m able to continue representing my constituents, but it’s a bit daunting to be faced with the realisation that I will be the only MSP able to effectively criticise the union and how it’s failing Scotland. I understand why my former SNP colleagues made the decision they did, but I’m very concerned that the Labour party will stifle their voices when it comes to the constitutional settlement. Sinn Fhèin would be happy to accept any former member of the SNP who wants to make themselves heard, as we have already accepted former First Minister mg9500.”

Notably, the MSP has called for defections of former away from Labour. This may not be out of the realms of possibility as reports of tensions rising in Labour, with socially conservative and unionist members rallying together against the SNP insurgence. The ex-SNP members may find a friendlier space in TPM and Sinn Fhèin, whose national party is not explicitly unionist. The Telegraph will be investigating these reports further in the coming weeks, as the post-merger fallout could be more dramatic than the creation of the cabinet.

BrexitGlory is a political pundit and report active in Westminster and Holyrood. For tips, leaks and information please reach out to: Klobucharge#0830

STV SPREADSHEET

In a race that could have delivered a shock or two, Labour members instead backed two figures who are widely seen as establishment. Sam is ex-leader and ex-deputy leader and offered little in their manifesto in terms of reform, but is a trusted and experienced member, who has already demonstrated their ability as a unity candidate.

Youma’s manifesto was also lacking in reform, in comparison to the likes of HKNorman’s and ChairmanMeeseeks’. Youma has a good track record however, turning around Scottish Labour and bringing them back up the polls. Youma’s manifesto consisted almost entirely of the idea that they would serve as “devolved deputy”, focusing their efforts on the devolved assemblies. It is no surprise that this was a popular idea given the current Conservative domination of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It is no surprise that candidates: Lady_aya, David_johansson, Rinarchy and Butterlands were knocked out in the early rounds. Pootis’ bid that focused on the election failure was rejected in the first round, though many of his ideas were carried by other candidates, notably his ally HKNorman. Interestingly it seems HKNorman’s endorsement of Pootis wasn’t necessarily reciprocated, as Pootis’ vote for themselves (we can assume), was then transferred to Rinarchy, not HKNorman. Will the fallout from the result break their de facto alliance?

Captainographer lasted to an impressive round 6 before being knocked out, followed by Trongle who suffered from having the wrong views on the monarchy and the union. Both of these candidates received strong support in the first round of voting, but failed to reach across the broad tent to gather second and third preferences. ChairmanMeeseeks met a similar fate, gathering 5 votes in first round, second only to Youma, but failing to get more until the eighth round and getting knocked out. Perhaps their idea of mandated education videos to be distributed by the whips wasn’t an attractive idea?

HKNorman came incredibly close, coming in at third and just behind Sam. This result is likely to cause fresh tensions as the outspoken frontbencher has more grass roots support behind them, and is known to criticise Labour from within. One Labour member said that HKNorman was a “suspicious” individual. HKNorman is also a controversial figure due to their outspoken anti-British separatism, putting them at odds with more traditional Labour members such as Trongle.

The newly elected deputies, especially Youma, will have the immediate challenge of navigating the SNP merger that is expected to succeed. Not to mention the party is still suffering post-election blues, with many members doubting the leadership’s ability to deliver victory in the summer. Failed reformist outsiders HKNorman and ChairmanMeeseeks may be in a position where they get to say “I told you so”, come summer.

Got tips, leaks or off the record thoughts? DM BrexitGlory on Discord at: Kloburcharge#0830

BrexitGlory is a political pundit and journalist active in Westminster, specialising with internal Labour party politics.

Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing I would like to see more than the Scottish Nationalists being crushed under the comparative might of Labour, their cause swallowed up by an old and overgrown beast, but this merger will snuff out the much needed representation of the Gaelic identity.

Already Labour members have started campaigning for continued unionism. In a letter penned to a local paper /u/Drunk_King_Robert said:

“I wish to contend that the breakup of the United Kingdom, far from a goal we should be striving for, in reality represents the greatest setback for the cause of British Socialism.”

Are the SNP kidding themselves or are they just cowardly? Do they really think Labour value the long and proud history of Scotland over their brand of English Socialism? Ex-Labour leader, and likely next deputy leader, Sam-irl penned a response simply saying:

“No”

Can anyone in the SNP justify why, just why, the senior Labour figure would give such a lazy an uninspired response to another member attack the nationalist cause? Perhaps they don’t actually care? The only thing Labour has ever cared about is beating the tories, not Scottish nationalism.

Make no mistake, with this merger, proper Scottish nationalism dies. Labour will immediately abandon the Scottish people once they have ceded their vote to the red machine. Labour quivers at the thought of taking a stance on anything, especially on the union, because they know they will be attacked. If the small and merry band of jolly fighters that is the SNP, think they can take down the Labour leadership over an issue that would threaten the national campaign, think again.

“a Labour government can deliver on the promises of British Socialism…The UK is our country, and we ought to love it.” -/u/drunk_king_robert

This is all Labour care about, and the SNP are nothing but cowards if they submit to a party that is so cowardly it can’t take a stance, let alone the one of the SNP.

The SNP should stand up for what they believe in for goodness sake, are they William Wallaces or whimpering wannabes? SNP, I say you, do not go gentle into that good night.

DM BrexitGlory on discord at Kloburcharge#0830 to give tips, leaks and gossip.

That’s Kloburcharge#0830.

Earlier this week the Labour Deputy Leader election heated up again as incumbent DL, Maroiogog, resigned from their post. The resignation leaves two open spots to the eleven candidates, a mix of familiar faces and rising stars. This paper has obtained the names of all the candidates and all their manifestos. The manifestos are linked and are given short breakdown and a rating, the ratings do not take into account commons policy of ideology. In order of estimated perceived political heavy-weightness they are:

Sam-irl

Aims: More press activity and will work to foster a friendly and fun environment.

Bid in a nutshell: Experienced, dedicated, unifies party and wants to serve again.

Manifesto rating: A 6.5/10. Nice, brief and friendly but lacks real reforms and aims. +1 for the pun at the start and +1 for the BrexitGlory reference.

HKNORMAN

Aims: Democratise party decisions, more transparency and make press more “aggressive” with “spin tactics” (the Telegraph does not approve of dishonest press). HK admitted he would move towards what they called “gutter politics”.

Bid in a nutshell: Experience in all things but leadership, will represent grass roots in leadership and make the party open to members.

Manifesto rating: A solid 8.5/10. Well designed, unique bid for leadership, +1 for BrexitGlory mention.

Trongle

Bid in a nutshell: Experienced and blue Labour.
Manifesto rating: A decent 7. Clearly outlines objectives and how they will be achieved. +1 for having no shame in being blue.

Youma

Click here to open Youma’s manifesto.

Experience: Scottish Labour leader.

Achievements: Merging with SNP.

Aims: Make DL position in charge of all three areas of devolution.

Bid in a nutshell: Focus more on devolution.

Manifesto rating: eh, I will give it a 5/10. No graphics or design. Not much to it. DL for devo is an interesting proposal.

Thepootispower

Click here to open Pootis’ manifesto.

Experience: Labour front bencher.

Achievements: None mentioned in the manifesto.

Aims: More press, reactive legislation tracking, analysis of election results and form a better strategy.

Bid in a nutshell: Was very very sad at the election result and wants to do better.

Manifesto rating: A solid 8/10. Lot’s of focus on what actually went wrong for labour, including the recognition of TPM denying them seats. +1 for BrexitGlory mention.

Chairman Meeseeks

Click here to open CM’s manifesto.

Experience: Courageous survivor of Sunrise coalition rooms.

Achievements:

Aims: I counted a whopping 16 different reforms and ideas to improve the party. From creating a PLP chair to creating an election stockpile of national camapign events. CM has lots of ideas but some were rather lackluster and uninspired.

Bid in a nutshell: Similar to HKNorman, ChairmanMeeseeks has presented themselves as experienced in the rank and file but an outsider of the leadership contest. Is there space for both of these candidates, or will Labour members back the experience of candidates like Sam?

Manifesto rating: The best of the bunch. 9/10. Good focus on real systematic reforms that have the potential to really help the party. CM is allegedly favoured by Labour leader Akko and prominent backbencher JGM. +1 for focusing on giving us information on ideological views, -1 for views being Trotskyist.

Captainographer

Click here to open Captainographer’s manifesto.

Experience: Current labour press officer and used to be the “real” Secretary for the DfiD.

Achievements: Active campaigner and led a landslide in their constituency.

Aims: Get new members debating to raise polls and ally with TPM, the DRF and the Lib dems. (The later one is already been done.)

Bid in a nutshell: Quite similar to Pootis’, in that their bid is based off of the disappointing election result and outlining how they would do better.

Manifesto rating: 6/10. Standard, not many real reforms and mostly politician talk; something that Labour politicians will likely see through.

Butterlands

Click here to open Butterlands’ manifesto.

Experience: Elected as an MP but no other party positions.

Achievements: Becoming minister of State for Climate Change, but no relevant policy passed is cited in the manifesto.

Aims: Better coordination of visit posts, strong relationships with left wing parties and updating labour records.

Bid in a nutshell: Long-time Labour member and helper but never had a party position, and would be a fresh face.

Manifesto rating: 6.5/10. No graphics and pretty standard, probably correct about the visit posts. A good bid from a less-prominent member. +0.5 for liking admin work.

David

Click here to open David’s manifesto.

Experience: Not a lot, but that is ok.

Achievements: Ran a huge campaign in Cambridgeshire and turned a Conservative safe seat into a marginal.

Aims: Very vague and no real solutions to anything, including “keeping the praty together” and going for a “landslide strategy”.


Bid in a nutshell: Talking points.

Manifesto rating: 3/10. Not really a manifesto, more of a photoshoot. Doing it as a slide show is a good idea, but Labour needs solutions and strategy. (-1 for Blair facesteal)

Rinarchy

Click here to open Rinarchy’s manifesto. [M: A page has been removed to sidestep the self-dox, it included irl experience of things and how it could be applied to mhoc.]

Experience: Little politics experience but did mention out of politics experience and what that could bring to the table.

Achievements: Again, not a lot in politics but instead in business and outside of Westminster.

Aims: Incentivise/gamify activity, analyze the election loss in depth and prepare for the next election now.

Bid in a nutshell: While new to Westminster and new to Labour, they still brought a unique perspective to the party.

Manifesto rating: 8/10. This was a really good effort from a rising star who has a lot to give, nice graphics and design and some good ideas. They did a good job of having a relatively unique bid while not having much politics experience. +1 for inserted humour.

Analysis

Unfortunately with such a crowded race, the lesser-knowns and newbies: Butterlands, David and Rinarchy, are not likely to get far despite their good effort. Lady_Aya is also running but apparently failed to answer direct questions in hustings and did not submit a manifesto, so is also unlikely to get places.

Captainographer, the current press officer, is also not expected to be a close contestant with the crowded race. It is unclear how Labour member’s feel about his success as press chief, with multiple manifestos recognising the need for change in strategy at least to keep up with Conservative party press.

With there being two spots up for grabs, members may be more inclined to take a risk with a rising star rather than just voting for the most experienced member. Add to that the fact that members are still in mourning over the election, members are ready for change. Candidates like Pootis, Chairman Meeseeks and HKNorman, are fighting out for this unique opening in the deputy leader spectrum. All three have offered substantial solutions to the party’s issues, Pootis in particular criticising the election failure in detail.

Members with lots of leadership experience; Sam, Trongle and Youma, could be feeling threatened by the above as they themselves offer little to the table in reforms. Trongle could also find themselves victim to having the wrong ideology, where as Sam has consistently positioned themselves as a unity candidate.

While it is said that Akko and prominent backbench JGM favour Chairman Meeseeks and their plurality of ideas, HKNorman is said to be backing Pootis as his second choice for deputy leader to form a rival alliance.

Labour members took to the polls earlier today to cast their votes after attending hustings. An unofficial exit poll put the race too close to call, but favoured: Sam, HKNorman and Chairman Meeseeks.

BrexitGlory is a political pundit, analyst and journalist active in Westminster and Holyrood. For inquiries, tips and leaks: Klobucharge#0830

During the healthcare questions session in Holyrood earlier this week JGM asked a question where he claimed ending prescription fees in Scotland was Labour’s doing. This is not true as the SNP abolished prescription charges almost a decade ago in 2011. Upon hearing this the SNP leader broke protocol, by answering before the minister, and corrected JGM.

It was JGM’s reply to this however that really infuriated the SNP leader. JGM revealed that there was in fact a merger vote going on between the two parties, saying that he would be able to take credit for the SNP’s hard won past achievements.

In an attempt to cover his tracks, after realising the blunder, JGM tried to delete the comment from the records. The Telegraph has nonetheless obtained the evidence of the merger.

The blunder is said to have drawn significant SNP ire and discontent, especially as their achievements were being claimed to be Labour’s; something that is entirely and factually wrong. It is unknown whether JGM’s antics will sabotage the merger or not.

The merger is especially controversial for Labour who consistently claim to be either unionist or “other” when it comes to the union, a position that isn’t tenable after an SNP merger, successful or not. Will Labour also take credit an independence referendum to themselves?

BrexitGlory is a political pundit, analyst and journalist active in Westminster and Holyrood. For inquiries, tips and leaks: Klobucharge#0830

In a curious turn of events in parliament the right-hand division lobby for the second reading of B952 was near empty. The bill that would have banned tear gas usage against violent rioters was expected to pass (just) with Labour support but only three of their MPs managed to turn up; depleting the drama that had built up around how close the vote would have been. Excited activists outside parliament were left confused and bitterly disappointed. Disappointment turned to anger at Labour’s incompetence.

/u/SmashBrosGuys2933, Labour’s chief whip, took personal responsibility claiming that he did not know it was up for division and it was a ‘simple error’. Labour leader, /u/ARichTeaBiscuit also took responsibility saying that is was “unfortunate communication issue with the whipping system that has since been resolved”.

In an interview with the Telegraph the leader the leader also clarified that Labour did indeed still support the bill and it will be resubmitted for next term with Labour’s support. /u/ARichTeaBiscuit also issued an apology to voters and members:

The Telegraph also caught up with /u/HKNorman, the shadow home secretary who was present at the vote. While it remains unclear why they didn’t send out any alerts when noticing the empty Labour benches, the MP said they had “full confidence” in the leadership and the whips, believing that it was “an honest mistake.” The shadow secretary also expressed their support for the bill to be resubmitted. The Telegraph took the opportunity to ask them about the up coming election. /u/HKNorman admitted that Labour had an “uphill battle” with the recent leadership issues and their lack of big allies. However, they remained hopeful and optimistic stating:

“Our poll rating is higher than it’s been in recent memory, and we stand to make gains on our performance in the last election…the British people are still receptive to the Labour message, and now that we have a steady ship, I have confidence that the British people will only grow more receptive, putting us in a strong position to retake government come the election.”

Rather humorously the shadow secretary summarised it as “strangely strong”.

Leader of the house of commons and former Home Secretary, /u/cthulhuiscool2 said the following to our reporter regarding the incident:

“I’m pleased the effectiveness of the police force has not been diminished, thanks again to the bumbling and ineffectual Labour Party and their new leader. Not a good start for a party seeking to prove itself capable of governing once more.“

The question does remain however, just what were Labour MPs doing when the division bell rang? Some Labour staffers were found lounging in the strangers bar and in and around parliament, all oblivious to the division taking place. According to the new Labour leader, MPs were responding to constituents and personal business; despite not being anywhere near their constituency offices…

I am a big fan of the traditional foot patrol of the police constabulary in crime hot spots. Too many people in this country simply do not see police officers for months, often years and sometimes decades. The only time most ever see any is after a serious incident has already occurred, secretly admitting that a visible police force is a useful thing. I’m lucky enough to be an MP, I dive in and out of parliament almost every day, and there are always police officers there. That’s why it’s so easy for us MPs to forget how few police constables are actually on the streets.

I, and I believe the rest of the nation, are fed up with governments dismissing serious incidents as “petty crime”, that should go unpunished and instead rehabilitated; if they are caught by our passive police force that is. “Petty crime” can ruin lives. Robbery can shut a family business down. A stolen car can get set you back for years. An assault can leave you disabled and traumatised. This is not petty.

When positive action and real initiative is taken by an authority, it allows them to take control over a crisis. In our case it’s about crime prevention, taking action to prevent crime before victims call 999. Britain’s modern police force does not follow this tried and tested philosophy. Instead they cram themselves into a wailing Subaru to respond to a report, whizzing past crime hotpots and forgotten communities as they do so. Of course I’m not saying officers shouldn’t respond to crime, but a holistic policing strategy should include preventive measures. Our police force is reactive at best, and at worst passive. Recruiting 10,000 new officers is a good first step to being active and taking the initiative on crime.

How exactly can this be done? It’s obvious to people like me; the return of the traditional foot patrol of the constabulary. 10,000 new police officers won’t help prevent crime if they aren’t doing the right thing. If they become state-sponsored jobsworths, held captive by endless streams of paperwork, then they are useless; just as useless as the officers in squad cars on the highway.

Traditional police foot patrols are good for a number of reasons. First and foremost, foot patrols bring back a deterrent to crime. They are a constant presence that the land has a law, and our officers are here to serve it. It doesn’t matter how many years in prison the courts threaten to criminals, it’s not a deterrent unless they get caught, arrested and convicted. Researchers have long known that the increasing the severity of a punishment doesn’t do anything if there is a low likelihood of arrest.

A 2001 study by Daniel Nagin and Greg Pogarsky, scholars on deterrence, concluded “punishment certainty is far more consistently found to deter crime than punishment severity”.

It’s no surprise that when just 2% of crimes lead to conviction in the UK, that criminals don’t even think about getting caught; let alone the consequences of conviction. The Home Office in 1993 found that the probability of being sent to prison for a crime was 0.3%, or 1 in every 300 crimes. That is not justice. No one believes they will be caught committing crime if they never see a police officer, it’s that simple. By having an active and visible police force, criminals are faced with a real deterrent, and so crime will fall. A 2011 study (Bowers et al. 2011) also found that when police foot patrols were present in crime hot spots, crime also reduced in surrounding areas, and was not simply “dispersed”.

Community engagement should be a central part of a holistic policing strategy involving bobbies on the beat. Police officers should know the communities they are in. It is not a well-known fact, but many police officers do not live where they are deployed to, some haven’t even heard of the place they are told to respond to. It is therefore no surprise that the antics of crime gangs, strange changes of persons in a neighbourhood and curious behaviour of silent victims goes completely unnoticed. Community engagement should see volunteer groups, businesses, and residents responding with a local and visible police force to combat local issues related to crime. When the community is engaged in the process, trust between the police and diverse groups is strengthened, this is crucial if the authorities expect help from people when called upon.

“the English police have lost their symbolic aura, their capacity to command widespread implicit trust” – Loader and Mulcahy (2003)

To me, this is simply unacceptable. Not just for the aforementioned reason but also for the cause of law and order. If there is no trust in authorities to do their job honestly and diligently, then we risk a rise in vigilantism.

We saw this disturbance just last summer, when eco-tyrants traveled to my constituency, to do their very best to sabotage commuters’ plans; blocking roads and bridges as they saw fit. Unsurprisingly people were not very happy, but thankfully the London commuter has to be a naturally patient people – how else will they cope with delayed and non-existent trains? For some time, the nasty antics of these entitled eco-tyrants was put up with, people trusted that the authorities would respond and handle the situation, until they didn’t. Eco-warriors foolishly climbed on top of commuter trains during rush hour, in an attempt to escalate their efforts in shutting the capital down. Thousands of people were left with no alternative but to wait, but enough waiting had been done. It was already shown that it seems to take hours for a police officer to arrive and then actually do something. Patriots decided to take it into their own hands, climbing atop of the trains themselves and shoving the eco-tyrants down into a mob of angry people. I was happy to see the everyday person being empowered to act, I was less happy to see it being a necessity and seeing that so little trust was put into the police to actually be there and deal with the matter. Like I said, commuters are a patient breed, but if it wasn’t for a brave few who protected the protestors from the angrier members of the mob, there could’ve been far more horrid scenes. The primary deterrent from crime should be the law being enforced by diligent and dutiful constables, not public outrage at these fools.

This is why a trusted police force must also be visible to non-offenders, reassuring them that crime will be tackled; and that they are not alone and do not have to take the law into their own hands. If the only time people see police officers is because something bad has happened or will happen, trust will degrade and has degraded. Of course young black men in the inner city tend not to trust the police, they only ever see them when one of them is about to get arrested. This trust can only be rebuilt if constables are active in communities, not passive in painfully annoying squad cars.

There is also widespread public support for the return of the trusted and effective bobby on the beat. It’s not just a wise policing strategy, it’s also a good electoral strategy for any parties who wish to increase their polling ahead of the election.

The foot patrol of the constabulary may seem old-fashioned and overly traditional to some, but I don’t see how that is necessarily a bad thing. Familiarity is important if an authority is to be trusted. When it comes to crime perhaps a little bit of old-fashion and familiarity is a good thing. I was once accused by a left-winger of wanting an army of “PC George Dixons”, they were absolutely right. I want police constables to be trustworthy, active and knowledgeable of the local community; giving the law a constant presence, empowering communities and reassuring the public. They should quietly blend in while being beacons for law and order.

The continued captivity of the word “liberal” by semi-socialists reached new levels of madness this week. In what should’ve been fantastic news for everyone, the Classical Liberals and the government maintained the triple lock, freezing taxes for the poorest in society. Now of course Labour would disagree with this, that is no surprise. The surprise was the Liberal Democrats being so against low taxes for working families. A rising parliamentary star on the Liberal Democrat benches and the party’s spokesperson for the economy, /r/Randomman44, came out to attack those backing the tax freeze. They said they do not support it and openly declared it hurts the poorest.

If the Liberal Democrats aren’t in favour of the tax freeze, then they must be in favour of tax rises. This was puzzling to more traditional liberals (sometimes referred to as Classical Liberals – someone should make a new party) as VAT, NIC and income tax all target working people the most. Low taxes not only stimulate a healthy and sustainable economy, they also don’t directly punish the poor. Liberals should love low taxes, too bad these “Liberals” align themselves more with socialists than the rest of the right.

Last week parliament also witnessed senior Liberal Democrats arguing in favour of extinguishing Britain’s offshore drilling industry. Putting aside the geopolitical surrender to nasty Saudi Arabia and Russia that would mean, it would also have implications at home. When governments ban things, it doesn’t immediately make demand go away. Banning offshore drilling doesn’t mean we no longer want to heat hospitals or the homes of the elderly. Nor does it mean we won’t want to drive our cars or fuel our factories. These demands come from the bottom up, not the top down; therefore, if the government were to mandate this from the top down, they will find themselves at odds with the British people. That would be unwise.

What actually happens at home if the government were to ban offshore drilling is two-fold. Firstly, tens of thousands of British jobs disappear, entire families and communities find themselves with no economic prospects for years. Rising unemployment isn’t just bad for those who find themselves jobless, it’s bad for everyone. The more unemployment there is, the more wage depreciation there is, as the labour market shifts in favour of employers. Many workers on British oil rigs all come from the same communities, especially in Scotland. Rising unemployment strongly concentrated in the same local communities hurts more. It may not hurt Westminster, but it will hurt local businesses who now have no customers; chiefly because of Westminster actions.

Next, fuel costs will rise, due to a well-known and understood economic concept, “supply and demand”. If we make less fuel here in Britain, there is less of it to go around and prices will rise. It’s that simple. Those of us in touch with the real world know that rising bills hurt students, the elderly and JAMs the most. The elderly often turn the heating and the lights on for the social worker, and turn them back off again once they’re gone; they cannot afford much more. Hospitals and schools too require gas and electricity, if these costs rise it will only burden the taxpayer more. The UK will also have to turn to other nations for our fuel, charging a high premium as demand will not drop. Not to mention the costs of shipping oil from halfway around the world; both cash cost and environmental cost. Why would we want to increase costs from the top down? It is not our place.

Liberals are meant to understand these basic market forces, why is it that these modern, alleged liberals do not? I felt this was odd, so I confronted them in the house of commons, with the arguments I have put to you here.

The response from their Home Spokeperson, /u/JellyCow99, was a snide sarcastic speech that didn’t even manage to make a point; the worst kind of snide sarcastic speech. They refused to recognise the importance of British jobs and energy independence, no matter how many times I came back at them.

Next up was /u/Randomman44, who didn’t disappoint when it came to misunderstanding market forces, claiming that the desired affect would be to introduce “renewables”. Not only will we still require gas and fossil fuel for some time regardless of “renewables”, the legislation does nothing to protect jobs and local communities from the devil of economic stagnation. How could they be so out of touch?

The crux of the issue is the total disregard for the needs of communities, families and individuals. There were many honourable members who backed the legislation for good reasons. These Liberal Democrats failed to give such good reason, and only demonstrated their contempt for basic economics.

There it is: rising taxes, rising unemployment and rising bills; and total lack of respect for these issues. These may be isolated policy incidents, but it exposes a gross and toxic attitude from the fib dems to the British public and to the market. An attitude that will no doubt clash with real people’s lives.

/u/BrexitGlory is a Conservative MP for London.

I hear many tiresome arguments about the rights and wrongs of maintaining a traditional monarchy. Most of them come from republicans and the minor radicals, who happen to be odiously left wing, but some come from my fellow royalists. We like to talk about how the monarchy gives us a national identity and culture, about how the monarchy encourages tourism to our wonderful capital and of course we like to bring up our commonwealth of nations. These points are all very true and we will do well to remember them. That being said, the real reason the monarchy is so important is because it separates politics from the head of state, and the monarch represents the people instead of a political party.

The purpose of the monarch in our current system, is to be a politically impartial head of state. Prime ministers are busy running the country, we shouldn’t waste their time with lame photo shoots (I suppose they choose to do this regardless), ceremonies, state visits and hosting events. Who wants a politician to honour our soldiers anyway? It should be someone who actually represents the people and embodies the nation, not someone who has temporarily won over public opinion. Politics tends to divide us, while nationhood and identity unites us all; regardless of race, gender and background.

Without a monarch we would likely elect a president instead of dumping the duties on a Prime Minister. While I am confident that the British people would elect a fantastic Conservative and Unionist president, having a president comes with great costs. Not only does it punish the public purse more than a humble monarch does, but the system is flipped on its head. In a democracy the politicians are meant to bow to the people, work for the people and fear the power of the demos if they fail in their duties. With a presidency it is the other way around.

Just look at Trump and Macron, they are worshiped, gifted palaces, have eye-watering wages, tax exemptions and the military are solely loyal to them; a party politician instead of the nation. No wonder the pair are rather unpleasant and arrogant people, certainly no wonder why an American president can only serve two terms. They know that the pedestal, the worship, the military parades in their name, all gets to the head of a politician, inflating their arrogance to breaking point. A two-term limit is the constitutional equivalent of price caps. If prices are soaring, then something in the economic system is wrong and the root cause must be fixed. In our example, the root cause is having a greedy politician as head of state, not a powerless monarch.

I suspect while hearing royalist arguments about tradition, culture and heritage, many of the left become republicans; they’ve long had a distaste for patriotism after all. Only the real radical ideologues want rid of the monarchy to obtain the position themselves and to remove a safeguard on freedom. That’s the real reason radical republicans want Her Majesty gone, not anything out of principle but for ideological and personal gain. I don’t see Labour and the minor radicals that way. They are too soft and too misinformed, like a newly adopted and very tired kitten. I’ve heard the DRF speak in parliament, they seem to lack the fire, the ideas and the intention to have more sinister motives. Often the parties with the most disturbing names are really just trying to compensate for a lack of the aforementioned mentioned attributes.

Of course, I deeply care about tradition, culture and national heritage, but at its heart the debate is one of constitutional systems. Do we have a powerless and humble monarch, embodying the nation and her people as head of state; or do we have an arrogant, party political politician, using their position for politics, while their head bloats from the worship and their sight blurs from the height of the pedestal? For me the answer is simple, if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

God save the Queen.