Author: Cody Mhoc

M: written by /u/bluebirddo all mods should go to them

I want to propose a question to you all, let you think about it, and then give my rationale. 

Do we want a Cesar or a Cincinnatus? 

It’s a simple question, but one that requires the context of these two ideals, and an approach to both

I’m sure we all know who Gaius Julius Cesar is or have at least the name. Known as a great statesman, Cesar had incredibly humble beginnings. Starting life out as an orphan whose once-great family chose the wrong side in a devastating civil war, he built his way up politically through the military, eventually becoming consul of the roman republic. The man was the last of the republicans however, when he won a civil war against the rival faction, he acquired a godly amount of power in the empire, and used that power to rule absolutely. His name is known quite well in the aspects of history, great kings name their titles after him, The Kaiser, the Czar are both taken from Cesar.

A less well-known figure is Cincinnatus. But let that not deter you from his greatness. Born a plebian, a Roman peasant, he gained extensive power in a military coup much like his predecessor. He spent years dedicated to removing all those who stood in his path, made like better through authority much like his predecessor. But something that separates his story from Caesars is that Cinncinatus gave it all up. He brought back republican ideals in a time where Rome had forgotten about them, gradually he gave all the power back to the citizenry, and he is respected greatly for that. Cincinnatus’s story might not be as influential to you, but our revolutionary history was majorly influenced by his tutelage. In the United States, we have a city named after the man, Cincinnati. But a much larger influence was put on our first founding father. Like Cincinnatus before him, Washington gave up his power after the war. The man could’ve been king and that is incredibly not looked upon in our society. Washington even founded a society dedicated to those who fought in the revolution, he named it the society of the Cincinnati. 

Power is always to come to the executive in times of crisis, this is a fact, we sign away freedoms for safety. But is it better as a society to have a Cesar or a Cincinnati? 

I argue that Cesar is better than a Cincinnati. This is because we are human after all. We must acknowledge that although we may value these men differently; they are of the same stock, and want the same things out of life, the same things we most likely want out of life. Wealth, prosperity, and security. What stands in the way of that as a leader is enemies, and in circumstances like the greats men where that enemy isn’t a threat, a larger one grows, for every tyrant that was thrown out of the Roman senate, there were 3000 in the fields. The citizenry was ultimately the biggest threat to these men’s goals. 

So if that is the case, how did Cesar retain his power? To put it simply, he never stopped being a tyrant. Bread and circuses, and constant procurement of new territory made the peak of the roman empire. A despot cannot rest on their laurels, because that is when all hell breaks loose.

Cincinnatus was in a tighter spot historically, Rome was on a decline already, and he couldn’t do much to regain where Cesar left off, so he did the smartest thing he could for his legacy, he relinquished his control so it wasn’t his problem. 

I might also defend my answer by acknowledging this, what is to stop a Cesar from succeeding a Cincinnatus? Does anyone believe Cincinnatus stopped dictatorships or despots? Power cannot dissipate easily, especially among the public consciousness. 

  Having a Cincinnatus marks something more drastic. The end of a time. Gorbachov is a prime example of this. The man knew that his position was already under fire, and did liberalize his administration from his predecessors to mitigate what was to occur next. He was overthrown, but his policy saved him from becoming the next martyr of the communist cause. But to my previous point, we can see today his liberalization and the erasure of the communist presence did nothing to stop another Cesar from coming to power in the former soviet union. We can even mark this Cesar as more of a dictator than his predecessor.  

Our federal branch isn’t despotic, or tyrannical like the examples above, but it would be ignorant to say the same ideas do not apply. I worry about what will come with the dissolution of powers given to the feds, I don’t like the fact that the government has control over us, but I accept crucialness of the government retaining that power. To put it simply, if and when extensions of the federal government are weakening significantly, it will mark a much greater, more devastating occasion.   

So for our sake, let’s just hope that our Cesar is benevolent, but not enough to relinquish the power given to him.

The great chemist Arrhenius claimed that burning fossil fuels could lead to higher CO2 levels. Decades later the existence of the greenhouse effect was confirmed by scientific means, This revelation was swiftly followed by activists pushing for governments to counteract climate change using a variety of means including carbon pricing.

Historically the US has had a rather rocky relationship with measures intended to price carbon emissions. From the failure of the 1993 BTU tax to the toxic debate surrounding the Waxman-Markey cap and trade Act it is fair to say that the United States has never had a true carbon pricing mechanism. Now with the Majority proposing a raise in our gas tax, this is set to change, unless the Senate majority opts to kill the proposed legislation.

Doing so may that we cannot curtail climate change alone as the United States makes up barely 15% of all CO2 emissions. Now compare that to the 85% of remaining emissions, especially 28% emitted by China and you can start to see the problem with relying on unilateral action to reach the proscribed goal of a 50% reduction by 2030. 

There is also an even bigger disparity to be considered.  Since 2005we have managed to reduce our emissions by 758 million tonnes. In contrast other countries particularly China and India have skyrocketed their emissions, with the former increasing its yearly emissions by over 3 billion metric tonnes in the same time period. In other words, the Chinese increase in emissions was almost quadruple our emissions reductions and managed to almost doubly offset the combined US-EU CO2 reductions. To make matters worse the Chinese government has made clear that Chinese emissions will continue to grow until a supposed peak around 2030, conversely the year by which global CO2 emissions are supposed to be halved.

We are not the main culprit when it comes to CO2 emissions. Yet the current House Majority wishes to impose carbon pricing measures upon the American taxpayer, while conversely doing very little to tackle the real problem of China and India ramping up their emissions.

To add insult to injury the proposed new measures are far from a free lunch. Studies examining the impact of the EU ETS system on electricity prices within the EU27 have found that Emissions Trading may have resulted in electricity price increases ranging in between 12-27% ,with some studies even suggesting an increase of 66% . For the average American, this could mean hundreds if not thousands of dollars per year to pay for the most basic of necessities.

These additional costs also have severe distributional impacts with some studies indicating that the burden of carbon pricing could be 3.25 times higher for our lowest income than for the fifth-highest quartile. Of course, this could be somewhat mitigated through complex tax rebates, but so far proposed cap and trade and infrastructure legislation has completely failed to address these disparities.

Yet there is good reason to believe that all this pain maybe for very little gain in terms of decreasing our domestic emissions. According to the Energy Information Administration, there is very little correlation between gasoline prices and the number of miles travelled by motorists.  In British Columbia, one study found that “In fact, oil prices have been found to have a bigger effect on emissions in B.C. than a carbon tax.”

 In the end, it is far more likely that any attempt at green taxation or cap and trade is simply a cash grab, an attempt to increase the federal government under the thin veil of climate change. Therefore it must be the duty of not only any decent fiscal conservative ,but also anyone who cares about social justice to firmly oppose such policy even if for different reasons.

In recent weeks the RAISE Act has caused much controversy across the aisle, with the Republicans decrying the measure as destructive and the democrats standing by their bill.

However even if raising the minimum wage was to be considered a net gain, an obvious problem arises. How do you account for the disparities between the various states and various businesses themselves? How do you prevent mandated equality from breeding more inequality?

 Take the former states of Maryland and West Virginia for instance. In the fiscal year, 2019 Maryland had a median income of $40,341, while West Virginia trailed the Old Line State with a median income of $25,320. That means that on average a worker in Maryland earns 38% more. This regional disparity is also reflected in the minimum wages applicable in these 2 localities, with the minimum wage being $8.75 per hour in West Virginia and $11.75 per hour in Maryland.

Under the RAISE Act, both West Virginia and Maryland would both have to raise their minimum wages to at least $15. Were they to do that then West Virginia would be forced to raise its minimum wage by over 40% while Maryland would need to raise its minimum by about half that. In effect businesses in much less affluent Appalachia would be faced with a disproportionately large increase in labour costs that they simply cannot afford. 

This disparity becomes even bleaker when it comes to the rural-urban divide faced by many states. On average mostly rural areas are significantly poorer than large cities. This is reflected in their earnings where a worker in a mostly rural area earns close to a quarter less than their urban counterpart. 

What makes this increase even more destructive is that under the proposed Act tipped and non-tipped workers would be entitled to the same hourly compensation, despite the fact that the former usually tend to make most of their wage from tipping. According to one source:

“The median share of hourly earnings that come from tips account for 58.5 per cent of wait staff’s earnings, and 54 percent of bartenders’ earnings.”

Nelp

With that in mind, a mandatory $15 per hour wage makes even less sense for tipped workers, especially in the context of our reeling service sector. Even before the pandemic, the pretax profit margin for most restaurants was in between 2-6%. After the pandemic, however, most restaurants have reported 30% lower sales and yet under the proposed minimum wage regulations, these same operators could see their costs increase by 20-30%.

To see just how destructive a minimum wage hike of these proportions can be, one has to harken back to 2014 when Seattle passed a $15 per hour minimum wage within a fairly similar timeframe to the one proposed within the RAISE Act. As a result, smaller restaurants like the one you can read about here had to contend with skyrocketing labour budgets. To quote one owner

“When we started our business, our labor cost was right around 25% and our store profit without owner salary was about 33%. When minimum wage increased to $13/hr, our labor bumped up to 35% and cut our bottom line by 10% down to 23%. Next year, our labor cost will bump up to 40% (an increase of 15% from 25%) and our bottom line will be 5%.”

Perhaps it is then why even the non-partisan CBO projects that a $15 per hour minimum wage would destroy 1.4 million  jobs and these job losses would be concentrated amongst our most vulnerable workers – the least educated and youngest workers. 

Yet it is worth noting that the CBO projection assumes a $15 minimum wage being imposed by 2025 whereas the RAISE Act mandates an increase within less than 3 years from now, indicating that the effects of the new regulation would be far more severe than they may at first seem.

Unsympathetic to these concerns of small business owners, many on the political left have tried to paint the increase as an act of class war pitting the workers against large corporations and greedy. That is despite the fact that most large companies such as Costco and Amazon already pay $15 per hour irrespective of the federal minimum wage as they can afford to do so. This is a stark contrast to smaller enterprises, which often have to 

This fact reveals perhaps the biggest intellectual hypocrisy in the Democrats’ ideology. On the one hand, we have seen pieces of legislation such as the Wealth Cap Act or the Green New Deal. All of which sought to increase the progressivity of our tax code by making those who in the eyes of the Democrats can do so pay their fair share.

 Yet when it comes to the minimum wage we see the Democratic Party pursue  $15 , sometimes $25 dollar minimum wages, which would have practically no effect on the wealthy, while disproportionately harming small business and the poorest workers as a whole…

Written by Harry Johnson for the Telegraph

 On the 25th November when NGSpy was taking Chancellor MQ’s he told the House one of his top priorities was implementing dividend imputation. 

“I shall seek to freeze the current tax increases on the lower bracket of tax as a top priority, as well as implementing other policies in the Phoenix Coalition agreement such as dividend imputation and the corporation tax rate.”

This was several months before any budget deal was announced with the Libertarian Party. Whilst Mr Chompsky would like to claim this was a Libertarian policy and that that is no u-turn from NGSpy the facts do not stack up in his favour. Dividend imputation was featured in the phoenix coalition agreement and NGSpy had even asked Friedmanite19 to consider the policy when the LPUK Leader was Chancellor. 

On September 10th NGSpy asked the following question to the then Chancellor Friedmanite19

“Will the Chancellor inform the house of the government’s policy in regards to getting rid of double taxation caused by capital gains tax and corporate tax taking effect on the same profits in cases of dividends?”

This seems to directly contradict the current Chancellors stance that double taxation is not a problem. Friedmanite19 told the Telegraph that “Dividend imputation had been suggested by NGSpy, it was one of his key policies and I was happy to work with him to achieve it, it’s a shame to see him roll back on his economic principles and kowtow to a Chancellor who is keen on destroying the legacy of the phoenix budget” 

It is also unclear whether the government even acknowledges the existence of double taxation at all with the Chancellor claiming that double taxation is “Double taxation is a misleading buzzword with zero economic literacy.”, despite their now Chief Secretary making the issue of double taxation a focal point of his economic policy whilst he was Chancellor.

It is clear that Labour have ceded control of the Treasury to Mr Chompsky allowing him to trample on their flagship policies with the Chancellor arguing that dividend imputation picks winners and losers and that double taxation is a buzzword with no literacy with their previously dissenting deputy nowhere to be found.

Written by Harry Johnson for the Telegraph

After a tough week for the government and questions being raised about whether the government is serious about governing the country, a series of transcripts have been leaked to the Telegraph illustrating the complete and utter turmoil in the cabinet at the time. 

Within the transcripts, members of the cabinet have resorted to derogative comments, calling the Leader of The Opposition a “self-obsessed manchild”, in addition, with  the Business Secretary claiming that “the centrists aren’t stupid enough to vonc us” and the Prime Minister  agreeing. Some ministers have also argued that it’s best to “ignore them”, showing a lack of respect for the C! And Liberal Leaderships.

The transcripts also indicate that at the time of the nationalisation the government believed the Conservatives supported nationalisation of the OneWeb system, despite the Defence Secretary claiming they did not. Alarmingly the leaks indicate that the government willingly nationalised the OneWeb company believing that they could simply get away with it, thinking the Conservatives would back the initiative and that the Libertarians would not choose to move a vote of no confidence.

Even more alarming is the fact that the Chancellor  suggested blackmailing the Liberal Democrat leadership ““if they are going to flip we need to make it public”  in what appears to be an attempt to force them to back the Britconnect initiative despite questions being raised about the scheme’s viability. The Chancellor also said that “allowing people to shank us is not a good precedent”, implying that they have every intention of making private conservations with party leaders public should they not back government policy. The extent of the blackmail material possessed by the government is not known at this time, but anyone doing business with the government and the Chancellor would do well to avoid sharing confidential information if these threats are to be believed.

The Liberals are not the only people on the Chancellor’s bad side however  as there also appears to be a conflict brewing between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister with the duo being allegedly split on FTPA repeal and now the Chancellor pushing for private conversations between the Liberals and the government to be used as bargaining chips, with the PM disagreeing claiming that it would be “terrible precedent”. 

Questions have also been raised about the competency of government Ministers behind the Britconnect initiative as they appear to have thought that the network, which currently has no military value whatsoever and is unlikely to ever will. In effect the government has spent close to half a billion pounds on a civilian internet network, thinking that they were purchasing navigation and intelligence satellites. 

With the government being accused of ignoring Parliament and these leaks painting an even more unfavourable picture of the government it may be high-time for Parliament to ask itself whether it wishes to see this sort of governance continue…

Regardless of how you feel about the government’s ideology, it is becoming clear that very little research is done when they put their policies into action. The most recent example of this, ‘Britconnect’. As soon as the starting gun had fired on this new initiative, the Government was wading from problem to problem. First. the Secretary of State for Business made the reckless claim that the Government would seek to nationalise OneWeb, integrating it into the United Kingdom’s Space Agency (UKSA), only to wind this commitment back, buying half of the company instead. Yet semantics and economic mistruths before Parliament are only half of the problem with Britconnect as, under the veneer of this fully automated luxury (space?) communism being offered by the government, there are real geopolitical and even technological hurdles that the government has so far failed to even acknowledge.

To begin with, is the issue of how we get these satellites into orbit. The Prime Minister has confirmed that there will be no funding for the launches to be carried out in the UK, implying that OneWeb (perhaps soon to be renamed as UKSA-web?) will be carrying on with its current launch regimen of launching its satellites using Russian Soyuz 2 rockets from sites on Russian territory. Perhaps this would not be that big of an issue if these were commercial satellites launched by a private entity, but the government themselves have confirmed that these satellites will effectively become the digital backbone of modern Britain and, more alarmingly the government also envisions these satellites being utilised for military purposes with the satellites being touted to have Public Regulated Service (PRS) capabilities akin to those of the Galileo network. In short, these satellites are supposed to be the single most important national security and foreign policy asset in the British arsenal, and yet the government seems all too comfortable outsourcing its launches to the Putin regime. and its allies.

Delivery aside, is it even possible to turn a swarm of small Low Orbit satellites into the veritable swiss army knife of Satellites? 

The government is claiming that it is, but the experts seem to disagree. Even if all the fancy scientific systems were to be dropped from Britconnect and the government wished to have dual-use internet and navigation systems it is still going to be near impossible to do it. As Inside GNSS points out, navigation and internet satellites operate not only in different parts of the atmosphere, but also operate on different frequencies. They also lack the space to contain multiple atomic clocks, which are integral to having an accurate navigation system. This arguably kills the idea of turning the OneWeb constellation into a viable and independent GPS system as we would have to rebuild the British navigation infrastructure from scratch, something no Government or private entity is likely to do when working alternatives already exist. 

This question perhaps pales into insignificance compared to the question of how you are going to fit a large array of other scientific, internet, and potentially military systems into a single hull. Moreover, how would you meet the power demands of such a large satellite when the Arrow satellite was designed with a much smaller and less power-hungry array of systems in mind? The Prime Minister has claimed that it is possible with minor adjustments and that UKSAC will devise a white paper to that effect, so it may be too early to pass judgment on this, yet on the surface, it seems to be about as plausible as the £60K  plastic homes policy the Government churned out last week – another ill-conceived, and under-researched Government program. Even if they could do it, one has to wonder how much would such a sophisticated assortment of satellites cost the taxpayer?

The Starlink and Galileo project cost close to £10 billion each over multiple years, reaching over twenty times the purported cost of Britconnect, which again is supposed to do far more than either of those systems was ever supposed to do and is set to launch in less than a year.  Starlink and  Galileo used purpose-built satellites to achieve their capabilities, whereas  Britconnect is supposed to be composed of retrofitted internet satellites requiring potentially billions more in unspecified R&D costs and fundamental changes in our current infrastructure. Perhaps then it would be more cost-effective to just launch a dedicated navigation network using proven and available technology and leave satellite internet networks to companies like SpaceX, which already can provide us with the same capability without forcing the taxpayer to dole out on a white elephant of a government project.

All in all, this program is not fully costed – and the one thing that will surely be skyrocketing is the cost to the taxpayer, not the latest satellite network,

Written by Harry Johnson

Collective Responsibility, while practically a requirement for a functioning government as evidenced by how disastrous its lack has been for the Rose and Phoenix governments can be suspended if need be. That was the case with the Check-ups bill, which was a PMB that the shadow cabinet that according to insider sources specifically decided to have a free vote on. 

The original purpose of CCR in its earliest days was to prevent the cabinet from being subverted by the Monarch through disagreements and internal spats being made public. In the modern-day, the point of CCR is to maintain the appearance of a unified cabinet The principle that members of the (shadow) cabinet must publicly support all decisions made by the  (shadow) Cabinet. Members of the LPUK shadow cabinet were elected on the same platform and as is evidenced by  Libertarian Shadow Ministers acting in line with the platform adhering to that very principle.

That’s why /u/dominion_of_canada was right to point that there is no CCR in the shadow cabinet in this context because it was resolved that the bill was a free vote and thus outside of the scope of any form of collective responsibility. The shadow cabinet operating within the confines of the constitutional convention had a free vote in line with existing precedents on the issue when Micheal Howard allowed members of the Opposition to vote freely on the Civil Partnership bill when shadowing the Blair Ministry

More examples of collective responsibility being suspended  include the 1975 EEC referendum with former Cabinet Secretary Sir John Hunt pointing out in his testimony that 

‘‘I would not regard the 1975 EEC referendum] as breaching collective responsibility because this was a decision by the Cabinet as a whole to waive collective responsibility on one particular issue for a limited time. It was not a decision which any Minister took unilaterally …’”

John Hunt

This is seemingly what sets Solidarity’s CCR scandal apart from the Opposition setting a free vote on the bill. In the case of Welfare devolution, the Chancellor and the embattled Agriculture Secretary both dissented from the Prime Minister’s and the government’s position seemingly unilaterally. In the case of Shadow Cabinet, the decision was left to individual MPs to vote with their conscience.

The National government’s agreement to differ on the issue of Tariffs in 1932 is yet another example when the cabinet opted to allow Ministers to dissent on tariff policy from the official line. Setting a new precedent in constitutional theory that operates to this day. It is sad to see the Chancellor and indeed a large part of the political commentariat not being aware of this historical precedent and the changes it brought to how we view the concept of CCR. For a government that prides itself on being a radical progressive alternative their approach to the constitution sure is stuck in the 1800s.

A similar mistake was also made by  C. C. Edwards who attempted to equate a free vote being held by the shadow cabinet to a collapse of collective responsibility. If this form of CCR were to be applied to governance then practically every cabinet and shadow cabinet since 1979 if not earlier would have been subject to this “chaos” rendering the convention of CCR effectively defunct. In fact, by their very own definition, the government has seemingly already collapsed into CCR mayhem as is evidenced by Ministers either abstaining or voting against the motion M560.

 Yet as is evidenced by the rather luscious legislative history consisting of thousands of bills, statutory instruments, and statements being brought before the House one can see that clearly this is not the case and that the system is working as intended.

Either way with a fragile government and a seemingly split  C&S partner it is clear that the supposed collapse of CCR within the Opposition is merely a smokescreen to provide cover for a weak and ultimately faltering minority government that not only can’t stand opposition but as was admitted by the Chancellor does not know the full cost and extent of its policies.

It is no secret that the British left has had a difficult relationship with fiscal responsibility. From the gargantuan deficit of the Labour’s GEXIV manifesto to the 2.25 trillion fiscal rollercoaster that were the many  iterations of the Solidarity manifesto those on the left have almost always put fiscal responsibility on the backburner. 

That is why the fact that the Broad-left document contains a series of extravagant spending pledges should come as no surprise. Nonetheless most previous center-left and left-wing  governments such as Sunrise opted to propose at least some minimum  measures to curb the increases in deficit such as tax rises. This time however there is no such assurances  with the government proposing to rid itself of  a quarter of all revenues from LVT by devolving the tax fully without considering how big of a role the tax plays in funding our public services. The coalition agreement shows us this is a government without a plan and will make it up as it goes along. It’s clear the Treasury will need to raise taxation on ordinary people and it will be interesting to see if the government is straight up with people that it won’t be the ordinary workers paying for this but the wealthy

On the expenditure side, there are proposals to effectively throw away tenths if not hundreds of billions on a DOA nationalisation program. Even if we ignore nationalisation the structural deficit is set to surge massively as day-to-day expenditure is set to skyrocket even further. Whether that be “free” personal care, extra foreign aid or any other of the endless spending packages proposed. 

A deeply concerning fact is that the United Kingdom does not have this money, almost all the projects contained within documents are most likely going to be funded by borrowing and borrowing alone. Thanks to which the new government would all but guarantee that our children would find themselves saddled with enormous amounts of debt all for the privilege of getting to pay for an inferior service from the state.

Most reprehensible of all however are the government’s fiscal priorities or lack thereof. At a time of escalating tensions and uncertainty they are proposing to slash funding to our armed forces, while also pushing for a 2% target of international aid, a department that has time and time again been shown to be a white elephant. The government will be forced to put your taxes, raise taxes on ordinary British workers so it can ship your money overseas. The same can also be said for the proposal to spend billions of pounds reinstating regressive VAT relief that benefits the rich all the while wasting billions on subsidising cooperatives and kneecapping successful businesses with an array of punitive and spiteful measures such as a cut in free port numbers and a swath of nonsensical regulations.

 Fortunately the government finds it without a working majority Nonetheless with a PM hellbent on ramming through their agenda and a Chancellor seemingly oblivious of the cost of their own policies it is imperative that the center and the center-right  come together and  put the brakes on before it is too late…

Written by Harry  Johnson and Tres Commas

On the back of the leaked Groko, the Telegraph has obtained documents revealing a coalition deal between Solidarity, Labour and the WNP with a C+S agreement from the PWP. If formed this would represent the strongest leftist government seen in recent times. The deal sees Solidarity leader motelblinds as Prime Minister, while current PM Youma will become DPM. The deal contains a multiple of policies which are far-reaching and radical but without a clear majority in the Commons how much of this will actually be passed is still in question. 

The breakdown of cabinet can be found here: 

Prime Minister	motelblinds
Deputy Prime Minister	Youmaton
First Secretary of State	ohprkl
Minister for the Cabinet Office, Paymaster General	Solidarity
Secretary of State for Equalities	Labour
Chancellor of the Exchequer	Solidarity
Chief Secretary to the Treasury (attending Cabinet)	Labour
Secretary of State for the Home Department	Labour
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs	Solidarity
Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (attending cabinet)	Labour
Secretary of State for International Trade	Labour
Minister of State for European Affairs (attending cabinet)	Labour
Secretary of State for International Development	Solidarity
Secretary of State for Defence	Solidarity
Minister of State for Cybersecurity (attending cabinet)	Labour
Secretary of State for Business and Economic Development	Solidarity
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice	Labour
Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport	Labour
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local Government	Solidarity
Minister of State for the Northern Powerhouse (attending cabinet)	Solidarity
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs	Solidarity
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change	Solidarity
Secretary of State for Workers and Trade Unions	Solidarity
Secretary of State for Education	Labour
Secretary of State for Transport	Solidarity
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care	Solidarity
Secretary of State for Scotland	Solidarity
Secretary of State for Wales	Archism_
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland	Labour
Lord President of the Council, Leader of the House of Commons	Solidarity
Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of Lords	Labour
Chief Whip (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)	Solidarity
Lords Chief Whip (Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms)	Labour
Attorney General for England	Solidarity
Solicitor General for England	Labour
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster	Labour
Chief Mouser	Bubbles

On the economy there appears to be a lack of clarity as to what sort of measures the socialist government would undertake to balance the books. There is no mention of income and corporate taxes nor VAT ,with the only exception being proposed devolution of Land Value Taxes which would see a significant chunk of government revenue slashed. Moreover the document also refers to several tremendous increases in expenditure such as the near trebling of the international development budget to 2% of the GDP , nationalisation of water and energy services and other endeavours such as the construction of 3 million council homes as well as a “transition to Green Economy”.  All in all the proposed agreement sets out no clear plan as to how to adequately address the eye watering costs of its proposals let alone how to pass them.

The Home Department front there is set to be major changes to immigration. The government plans to scrap the points-based immigration system and grant amnesty for non-criminal undocumented migrants in the UK. They will also stop using detention centers for any non-violent immigration violations. They also intend to pursue Freedom of Movement for persons and goods in the Commonwealth. This is sure to raise a few alarm bells in Westminster due to its vagueness and potentially to once again put the UK back in a supranational agreement with no control over our borders. 

The Solidarity-led government will also oversee many nationalizations. The government plans to nationalise busing and rail. The costs of such a plan is expected to run into the hundreds of billions. Another plan is to mandate a four day four week which is expected to damage the economy by 85 billion and impact government services like the police and NHS. There is also the proposal to nationalise all PFI debts ,totalling over a quartet of a trillion pounds.

While practically all departments are set to received drastic increases in expenditure with the only major exemption being the Ministry of Defence , which is set to see its budget slashed back down to 2% of the GDP putting national defence effectively on par with international development.The MOD is set to find its resources stretched thin under this deal as the authors also propose new spending initiatives under the Ministry such as a  National Defence Industry Plan and National Shipbuilding Scheme both of which would likely require the addition of new resources to the ministry. They also plan to give back the Chagos Islands, a very contentious subject and since the Tories and LPUK backed a deal making sure Parliament had a say in all territal handovers it is unclear how the government will manage this without a Commons majority. 

They also plan to commit 2% of GDP to international aid which is expected to be over 40 billion pounds. In addition to the plan to limit England to just one free port is sure to damage the UK’s international trade abilities. 

On the education front, the government will ban all grammar schools and impose state control. This is a move against public opinion as evidenced by the results of the general elections and polling carried out by Yougov. 

A notable omission from this deal is the brexit deal and the controversial Irish border protocol , which may very well appear to be the most problematic of this deal so far as Solidarity and the SDLP both have demanded that the protocol be amended ,with the latter opting to collapse the Northern Irish Executive, while Labour helped author that very deal. It is interesting to see how the socialist government would try to tackle the issue at hand.

Continuing on with the apparently contradictory trade policy the broad-left government is set to pursue a trade agreement with the USA A move which no doubt will cause controversy amongst the leftist orthodoxy  and a significant portion of Solidarity electorate who voted in Solidarity on the promise of challenging the United States.

Analysis:

The deal presents a series of bold and radical policies that are likely to unsettle the more moderate Labourites especially in the light of Labour attacks on Solidarity last term. Much also remains to be seen on the issue of Brexit where there appears to be a significant gap between the Solidarity Party and their Labour partners.The question now appears to be whether  Solidarity could exert enough influence over its junior coalition partners to force them to go back on their own deal.

A budget appears to be another sticking point given the current center and center-right makeup of the parliament as well as the enormous costs attached to the government’s plans with no clear proposal to pay for them.

While the plan is ambitious how much of it can be implemented is in the air due to the current arithmetic in Parliament. Concessions will have to be made with the government cutting deals with the Lib Dems , the Tories  or Coalition. 

Written By Harry Johnson and Tres Commas

As the deadline for government formation looms the Telegraph has managed to obtain what purports to be a copy of a coalition deal for a “unity” government. The proposed government would find itself with 53 out of 150 seats in the house of Commons. If passed the deal would see the head of the Independent Grouping /u/SpectacularSalad become Prime minister with the Conservative Leader /u/Padanub becoming Deputy Prime Minister and current Prime Minister  /u/Youmaton becoming First Secretary of State. A full breakdown of cabinet can be viewed below

The deal represents what seems to be a last ditch attempt to prevent the LPUK-led or Solidarity government. It would be a surprising move indeed, not just with the positioning of the Tories and Labour but especially given their recent election results where the old two party giants both lost seats leaving LPUK and Solidarity the largest parties in Parliament. 

Policywise the deal appears to be a hodge-podge of Labour and Conservative policies. Protectionist measures appear to be the centerpoint of the deal ,which proposes to impose “preferential taxation rules to support heritage goods under this scheme, allowing us to support British Goods with historic and cultural value.” and the rollout of geographic indicators  The deal also proposes a range of other expenditures such as large funding increases for the National Health Service, partial abolition of tuition fees ,a new benefit for workers under the age of 25 as well as a slew of other  vague expenditures. There is also the vague proposal to go to the moon ,which according to NASA projections would cost tens of billions alone.  It is unclear whether all of these proposals can be realistically funded with higher rates of income tax alone.

The coalition takes a middle of the road approach to immigration, opting to propose a “liberal and reasonable” system with proposed low barriers to labour mobility and reciprocal freedom of movement deals . It is unknown whether the government would choose to retain the current Conservative immigration system or chose to pursue a Labour-backed alternative.

Perhaps the most interesting is the proposal for tax power parity. If implemented the proposal would see Corporation and income tax powers devolved to Wales , with potential corporation tax devolution to Scotland. This appears to be a major concession from the Conservative as it would see the Tories capitulate on most devolution issues. The Conservatives also appear to have lost out on FTPA with the deal pledging to support the now-repealed Act.

 Nonetheless the document also contains other major concessions and u-turns from the constituent parties with the Labour  Party appearing to capitulate on Trident abolition and many defence proposals. Moreover very few concessions appear to have been given to the junior members of this coalition, the PWP.

Analysis:

The self-proclaimed purpose of the government is to lockout any prospective Libertarian-lead government from Number 10, beyond this there appears to be very few other common goals. It remains to be seen how the prospective government would handle the Irish border issue given that the prospective Prime Minister and members of the People’s Workers Party have vociferously opposed the Border protocol , with Labour and the Conservatives supporting it. The deal is also silent on specific budget issues with the authors choosing to strike a specific budget deal in the future ,while committing to large spending increases without a plan to adequately fund them and control the deficit.

Devolution appears to also be a potential flashpoint as it is unclear whether Conservative backbenchers who only last term attempted to prevent the devolution of Corporation tax to Wales would find themselves forced to vote for unprecedented  devolution of taxation powers seemingly without a referendum.

While if successful the coalition would be able to command a minority government, many questions would remain over the stability of such a government and if it would be a betrayal of the last election. The Conservatives and Labour still sit on opposite spectrums and even despite compromises eyebrows will be raised if this is just one final attempt by the aging parties of old trying to cling to power. Also bizarrely is the appointment of an independent Salad as PM which would be the first time in modern history an independent Prime Minister would take office. Of course this also apart from the final question being how the public who supported in greater numbers the LPUK and Solidarity react to this old party government which promises much more of the same ,while offering a seemingly disjointed cabinet.