PM apologises for Minister’s comments on cabinet’s first day.

Prime Minister motelblinds unveiled his cabinet today, laying out the team he will be making responsible for delivering on the government’s radical agenda.

Among the appointments already gaining controversy are those of HKNorman, to Housing Secretary, and Alvarolage, to Transport Secretary, as comments made yesterday, one which was deleted subsequently, have resurfaced, showing the pair appearing to offer some support for the actions of the Provisional Irish Republican Army.

The comments were made underneath the announcement of the “Provisional PPUK” a splinter organization from the PWP. Alvarolage made the first comment, saying “The provos are back at it”, a reference to the nickname the “provos” given to members of the Provisional IRA. 

The controversial comments come after this, with HKNorman replying “the wrong side of history this time”, apparently implying the PIRA had been on the  right side. Alvarolage agreed with this assessment, replying “indeed” to HKs comment.

Reaction was immediate, with Seimer1234 asking “are you serious”, and eelsemaj22 asking “what are you on about”. After this reaction, HKNorman attempted to cover-up the comments by deleting them.

The PIRA, which the pair appeared to have been offering support for, was a terrorist organisation on the island of Ireland which killed 1,700 people.

The Prime Minister gave the following comment: 

“Those comments were regrettable mistakes which I have addressed to the respective Secretaries, the Provisional IRA were terrorists and they are no friends of this Government.”

An OO Spokesperson gave the following comment:

“The comments made by these two now Cabinet Secretaries are beyond the pale. For a party whose NI branch is the SDLP, a party who continuously showed the PIRA were on the wrong side of history throughout the Troubles, such comments are deeply saddening. Both Ministers should apologise for them and apologise to the victims of the PIRA as soon as possible”

Telegraph/Yougov Exit Poll: LPUK on top as Solidarity surge.

Results here:

A nationwide exit poll, conducted by the Telegraph in conjunction with Yougov, shows a parliament fractured, with the LPUK and Solidarity emerging as the two largest parties, while the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats suffer crushing defeats.

The LPUK will be the largest party in the next parliament, holding 38 seats, a gain of 6 from their notional results last election. This gain is caused by an unprecedented surge across constituency seats, taking 11 seats from the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. The party’s pole position leaves them in the driving seat for government formation and makes Friedmanite19 the likely candidate to be Britain’s next Prime Minister.

The rise of Solidarity this term has been stunning and yet few could quite have expected this result. Solidarity will come second, with 30 seats, a gain of 20 from their notional results last election. The surge comes almost entirely from regional lists, with the party taking close to a majority of the list seats in a number of regions. This result, coupled with a collapse in Labour support, marks Solidarity as the new dominant party of the left. Solidarity will also win two constituencies, Northern Ireland and Mancs City and South, while it will lose the seat of Lancs South and its leader motelblinds will fail in his attempt to take the seat of Cheshire.

The Conservatives have been decimated according to this result, falling 21 seats from their notional results last election to 26. This is the first election in years to see the Conservatives not in top spot and will likely bring into question the leadership of Padanub. His party sees a spate of constituencies taken by the LPUK, including Kent, Lincolnshire and Cheshire, while the LoTO will lose his battle in West Yorkshire.

The governing Labour party will suffer a meltdown result on par with the Irish Labour Party’s collapse in 2016, with Labour seeing its MPs halved from 34 notional seats at dissolution to just 17 now. Labour are left holding just three constituencies: Essex, North London and Central London. The PM will lose in Clydeside to the LPUK, and will likely find their position untenable given the wipeout suffered by her party on a national scale. Make no mistake, Labour is a party in a death spiral based on these results.

An impressive campaign sees Coalition! take fifth position, edging out the Lib Dems, with C! set to take 14 seats. The party sees major constituency wins in London, East Midlands and the Southeast as well as strong results on the list. This result puts C! in the valuable position of potential kingmaker in a divided Commons,

The Liberal Democrats follow their traditional “Big Three” counterparts in having a deeply disappointing election, arriving in 6th place with just 12 seats, a fall of 11. Questions over electoral strategy and the decision to run just 16 candidates will be asked, as the party faces into a period of deep soul-searching.

The Progressive Workers Party have achieved a result they will be very proud of, taking 9 seats, tripling their notional result from last time out of 3. Impressive campaign showings see them take Cambridgeshire as well as a number of lists in several highly targeted regions.

In a good night for the smaller groupings, the regionalist WNP will take 2 seats on Welsh list, while TIG will win a seat in the Northeast list as will pro-european Voices For Europe in East England.

6 seats have been marked as tossups. They have been given to the party we view as most likely to win them, however these seats will likely be very close. These include Clydeside, a tossup between the LPUK and Labour, Upper Severn, a tossup between the LPUK and Conservatives, North and Mid Wales, a tossup between the LPUK and Solidarity as well as East London, a tossup between C! and Labour.

This parliament will be more fractured than at any point in modern British history, with 10 groupings holding parliamentary representation. The path to coalition is narrow, with the only realistic options for majority government at this moment in time appearing to be the LPUK and Conservatives in combination with Coalition! or the Lib Dems or both. These results make clear that Britain may well be facing into 6 months of deep political uncertainty. They also drive home a realignment in British politics, with the LPUK, Solidarity and C! overtaking their traditional counterparts on the right, left and centre of British politics.

OP-ED: The Party of Hate

This op-ed was written by Seimer1234, Deputy Leader of the LPUK.

We have seen all too clearly in recent weeks where the politics of hate leads.

Recent events in Washington, where a mob of violent insurrectionists decided to storm the Capitol, show us what happens when politicians engage in the politics of extremism and divisiveness, what happens when politicians smear and dehumanise opponents.

As the world watched aghast at these events, there was a feeling of both pity and superiority among some here. American politics was to be looked down upon, a nation where politics was broken, not comparable to the UK or too more advanced and sophisticated democracies.

This is the wrong way to view these things.

Britain is not immune to the politics of hate and vitriol. It is a politics all of us engage in at some point or another. Identifying the other side as evil or dangerous is often too alluring and easy, offering politicians, including myself, a perfect way to dismiss the views of those we oppose.

However, while all of us engage with it, this poisonous rhetoric is not shared equally.

Solidarity, the new surging force on the British left, has clearly tapped into something. Its self-righteousness, its distance from the political establishment offers the voters a new choice, a vision of something radically different to the status quo.

There is much to admire about Solidarity as a political force. It’s a group of determined politicians, lead by a clearly competent leader. It’s organised itself very well, differing from the more traditional parties of the left whose internal organisation are often either labyrinthian or totally non-existent.

However, we have seen a dark, dark side to this party.

I contended with myself about whether I should write this article or not, about whether it was fair to write an article about the comments of a relatively new member. However, seeing the comment, and indeed lack of comment, emanating from the Solidarity higher ups I felt I had no choice.

In the recent barrage of press emerging from Solidarity HQ, a poster came from BobbyCrow. It said “Don’t Let the wolf in By the back door”, referring to the recent budget agreement. The poster itself was fine, a well designed piece that offered an interesting, if in my view dishonest, take on the agreement.

The problem emerged in the discussion relating to the poster.

In what had been intended as a debate about MMT, a number of comments were made by the poster author that were simply beyond the pale.

They began by accusing the LPUK of having the RP accent as a requirement. This bizarre personal attack was strange enough, however the response to Cody when he asked what the RP accent had to do with anything was even stranger. Bobby decided to insinuate Cody was an illegal immigrant, saying he’d consider going to the Home Office to have Codys papers checked. From a party that claims to be about social justice and equality, using “illegal immigrant” as a political insult against opponents, who are members of the only party lead by a BAME immigrant, was quite disturbing.

By far the most heinous comment was one making an insinuation regarding paedophilia. The comment said that it was not like Libertarians to lose interest in something once it stopped being a minor. Insinuating opponents are paedophiles, days after we seen a group of conspiracists ,who believe the US Democrats are a party of paedophiles, bring a noose outside the Capitol is an incredibly dangerous act.

The response from Solidarity higher ups was much less than ideal. Solidarity Health Spokesman wiredcookie1 reacted to the paedophile comment with laughter, while the only comment made by motelblinds, the party leader, was to tell the LPUK leader to “stop crying” in a separate discussion.

It is important we grapple with this now. As politics arounds the world enters dangerous places, it is imperative politicians take responsibility for the language they use. I do not expect Solidarity will apologise. I am sure they’ll revert to type, move into a bunker mentality while telling me to “stop crying” or something along those lines.

However, with an election on the way, perhaps it is wise for politicians, of other parties to make clear that in a system which requires coalitions, there will be no political reward in the form of a space in government for parties that can not regulate their behaviour. 

Perhaps then we’ll see a change in tune from Solidarity.

NI and HCLG Secretaries miss MQs in pre-Xmas blow to government.

The struggling Phoenix government has been dealt a fresh blow just before the Christmas break, as it has emerged two Cabinet Secretaries missed their MQs session.

The first was the Liberal Democrat Housing Secretary MTFD, who failed to answer any of the 32 questions put to them. The session, which ended on the 18th of December, saw questions ranging from HMO licensing reform to the implementation of the Local Government report asked.

The second Cabinet Secretary was the Northern Irish Secretary SammySnail, who is also a member of cabinet leadership, answered just 1 of the questions asked of them. The cut off for answering was Tuesday at 10pm.

This comes after the controversy over the Stalin1953 MQs session, where 53% of initial questions were left unanswered. Questions will undoubtedly be asked over the government’s commitment to parliamentary scrutiny given this.

With parliament heading for the Christmas break, this is a demoralizing hit to a government already flagging in the polls. While they will hope to be able to regroup come January, it may be the case the cabinet is 2 members down by that stage, depending on how the opposition decide to move forward.

The LPUK gave the following comment: “The government early on in their tenure talked a big game about being accountable to parliament, anyone can now see this was lie as ministers fail to do the bare minimum expected of them and answer questions”

The Conservatives have yet to comment.

The government have yet to comment.

Work and Labour Secretary fails to answer 53% of initial questions in controversial MQs.

*This article was written by David Seimarsson, Editor in Chief of the Telegraph*

According to calculations done by the Telegraph, Labour Secretary Stalin1953 failed to answer 53% of initial questions put to him at Ministers Questions, a figure that will be a fresh headache for Government leadership.

The Secretary answered just 20 of the 43 initial questions put to him. When followup questions and answers are included this figure becomes 23 out of 46. 

Several former Cabinet Secretaries have fallen foul of failing to answer a majority of their MQs, with several resigning or being sacked as a result.

During Blurple 2 sophisticatedmurder, the International Development Secretary was dismissed as a result of failure to answer MQs, with Labour and the Lib Dems among those to push for their dismissal. During the first Blurple government InfernoPlato would resign as Energy Secretary following an MQs session where he missed over half the questions, while during Sunrise JellyCow99 infamously refused to step down as Home Secretary after missing over half of the questions put to them.

Even without the missed MQs, this session was still garnering significant political attention due to a number of controversial comments from the Labour Secretary.

The Labour Secretary came out in favour of closed shop practises, a union arrangement where employees are required to be a member of a specific union and makes their continued employment conditioned on said membership. This broke from the government line, as when the government Press Officer was asked if the government supports closed shop practises the answer provided was “no”.

Globalisation was the target of criticism from the Labour Secretary, who blamed globalisation for “rapid urbanisation, increasing economic inequality, increased poverty and homelessness, and increased deprivation”. This comes as the government is in the midst of talks with the EU regarding a free trade agreement, and after the Labour manifesto included a promise of unilateral tariff abolition.

They also criticised corporation tax cuts, which have been planned and announced by the Chancellor already, offering another example of a CCR breach.

This MQs session will be a new political problem for a government that doesn’t need one right now, and will provide a challenge to justify for the Prime Minister and the rest of the government leadership.

The government has yet to provide comment.

The Shadow Work, Labour and Skills Secretary Tommy2Boys made the following comment

“Labour need to first of all show up to parliament and do the minimum required of them. And then once they’ve got a grasp on that they should start pushing policies which won’t force people out of employment as they currently advocate for with closed shops, but policies which will encourage job creation such as cutting corporation tax.”

The following comment was provided by Libertarian Leader Friedmanite19:

“It was interesting to see the Secretary come out against the Chancellor’s proposal of reducing corporation tax telling the House there are more economic solutions to achieve the above apart from corporation tax changes. Clearly during the session CCR went out the window on corporation tax and closed shop unions. It was disappointing to see the government dodge scrutiny from the House as they left many questions unanswered.”

Op-Ed: We need to talk about Turkey.

This op-ed was written by Seimer1234, former Foreign Secretary, Defence Secretary and International Trade Secretary.

We need to talk about Turkey.

It’s a conversation that has long been an uncomfortable one for the West, particularly since the ascension of Recyp Erdogan to the Presidency. Erdogan has shown himself to be fundamentally anti-democratic, a problem for NATO and keen on flexing power over weaker neighbours, however vital security and economic interests have been put first and foremost. 

While previous efforts and statements of condemnation have happened, such as the motion I proposed a year ago condemning the arrest of Canan Kaftiancoglu which received cross party support, little real action has been taken on the matter.

This all has emboldened Turkey, and it has come to a head this year. 

Erdogan inserted Turkey into the conflict in the Caucasus, prolonging the conflict, increasing the loss of life and setting the peace process in the region back decades. 

In the Mediterranean, Turkey has pursued an expansionist policy, sending naval vessels into Greek and Cypriot water and is now planning further military exercises close to Greek islands to send a message to a growingly exasperated EU considering sanctions.

In Libya Turkey has failed to meet its Berlin Conference promises to stop arming Libyan military groups, pushing its influence in the country to stretch further control over the Mediterranean.

Turkey’s previous defence of the Uighur minority has given way to subservience to the Chinese government, sending thousands of Uighur refugees back to China, assisting in the Chinese government’s ethnic cleansing campaign. 

Erdogan has also ratcheted up tensions with France, a NATO ally, making derogatory comments about President Macron’s mental capacity and attempting to organise boycotts of French goods.

The West’s continued self imposed blindness to Erdogan’s neo-ottoman foreign policy is simply untenable. While Turkey has previously been a vital ally in the fight against terrorism, accusations from France and others that Turkey has sent Syrian jihadists to Nagorno-Karabakh to fight on their behalf clearly shows Turkey’s previous utility as a regional fighter against terrorism is decreasing.

Turkey’s behaviour is a serious threat to NATO, and leaves the dark possibility that, if Turkey continues unchecked, the nuclear option of NATO expulsion under the Vienna Convention may be left as the only possible remedy.

This option is far from ideal, and is not inevitable. Action can, and in my view must, be taken immediately to push Turkey to de-escalate, particularly in the Mediterranean.

So, what can the government do?

There are a few key steps the government should take to try and moderate Tukey’s extreme behaviour. The EU Council is meeting this week to discuss sanctions on Turkey. The UK should do the same and review the implementation of sanctions and new blocks on arms sales to Turkey. We must also step up dialogue with regional partners, particularly Italy, Greece, France, Cyprus and other members of the “Med7”. Diplomatic pressure campaigns should be applied, with the publication of joint statements similar to the one published during my time as Foreign Secretary being a potential option. The PM and Foreign Secretary should also raise the issue at the D12 with relevant allies such as the EU, Italy, France, Germany and the United States.

The government must take action. A continued reluctance to properly put a check on Turkey’s behaviour will result in serious problems for the strength and stability of NATO.

D12 summit falls through.

The planned inaugural D12 summit of 12 allied nations, scheduled to take place from the 27th to the 29th of November in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland appears to have fallen through, with the government making no public statements or confirmation of it’s hosting.

The D12 summit had been organised under the previous government, with heads of government, Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers from the UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy, Israel, India, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union agreeing to attend. Key goals from the meetings for the UK had reportedly included expanding the Winter Olympics boycott from the USA, UK and New Zealand to a wider cohort, pushing other Five Eyes members to agree to terms regarding Japanese accession into the alliance as well as broader goals surrounding progress on the genocide in Xianjiang and defence co-operation.

There had been no previous indication that the new government would take a different approach to the D12 than the previous administration, with no statement announcing cancellation from the Foreign Secretary since their taking office. Indeed, Labour have voted twice in recent months  in favour of motions calling for the usage of the D12 alliance, those motions being the Asia Defence Motion and 2022 Winter Olympics Boycott Motion.

In a comment provided to the Telegraph, former Foreign Secretary and LPUK Foreign Affairs Spokesman Seimer1234 lambasted the government’s failure, saying “it appears an absentee Shadow Foreign Secretary has now become an absentee Foreign Secretary. The D12 offered an unparalleled opportunity to assert UK leadership on international issues related to China, intelligence sharing and defence co-operation. This apparent failure to host is an immense hit to our national credibility, and I am calling on the government to immediately reschedule.”

OP-ED: Why we must do all we can to prevent the expiration New Start.

This is an opinion piece by unitedlover14, former MoS for Security.

On the 5th of February 2021, the nuclear arms reduction treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation, popularly known as New START, expires after a decade in force. The treaty limits the amount of deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and heavy bombers assigned to nuclear missions to 700 per country, deployed and non deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers and bombers to 800 per country and deployed strategic nuclear warheads and bombs to 1550 per country. Although this may seem like a large amount, and it is still more than enough to cause a nuclear apocalypse if war were to break out between these great powers, it is still a significant decrease on previous nuclear arms reduction treaties and a step in the right direction. The number of nuclear warheads allowed is down by 30% from the 2,200 limit set by 2002’s SORT (also known as the treaty of Moscow) and down a major 74% from the original 1994 START limit of 6000. 

The treaty is undeniably working. Despite allegations from Washington and NATO that Moscow has been violating other arms control agreements, the INF being the primary source of conflict, the Trump administration has admitted that the Russian Federation is keeping to the terms agreed under New START. A report from the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance published on the first of October 2020 (current as of the first of September 2020) states that the Russian Federation has 510 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers, 1447 deployed nuclear warheads and 764 deployed and non deployed nuclear launchers and heavy bombers. These numbers are well within the range allowed for under New START limitations. The US has shared similar numbers (verified by Moscow) that show they too are abiding by the restrictions. 

It would be fair to say that the success of this treaty is down to the rigorous inspection procedures allowed for both signatories. New START is protected by national technical means and 18 annual short notice on site inspections. National technical means, or NTMs for short, are the primary methods for ensuring compliance with international treaties and counterproliferation work. Satellite imagery, telemetry intelligence, geophysical intelligence and classic human intelligence all work together to provide international watchdogs with accurate information to ensure that states are complying with agreements they’ve signed or other restrictions on their nuclear arms programmes. In the case of New START, both signatories contribute to an extensive database on the numbers, types and locations of treaty limited nuclear devices to be confirmed with intelligence and inspections. For example, the Russians must notify the United States whenever a new ICBM or SLBM leaves the Votkinsk production plant and when it reaches its destination, which is monitored by satellite imagery. Verification of the restrictions is carried out by 18 annual on site inspections which can begin with as little notice as 32 hours beforehand. 10 inspections are allowed at Type One facilities that house deployed warheads and delivery systems whilst 8 are allowed at Type Two facilities that house non deployed delivery systems. These short notice inspections allow both signatories to check that they are abiding by the limits in place and cannot dispose of evidence of non compliance before the inspection. 

If New START is working so well, why is it at risk for expiration and why does it matter? Like most things in life, politics is getting in the way. From a national, and even world security perspective, the extension of New START is a no brainer for both the United States and Russia. This is something that’s recognised by the Russian Federation, who raised its extension as early as the first year of President Trump’s time in office. The US deferred the issue, wanting to ensure that the Russians were fully compliant before negotiating a renewal. They now know this to be true and yet we are still hurtling towards a dangerous nuclear arms race. Make no mistake, the expiration of this treaty is a very dangerous and scarily realistic outcome. New START’s expiration would be the first time in decades that restrictions on the aforementioned types of nuclear weapons were relaxed and would almost certainly lead to a nuclear arms race at a time where both countries are already undergoing significant nuclear modernisation programmes. We would also lose the vital information on the Russian Federation’s nuclear program that the treaty provides, raising the stakes of the arms race significantly. More intelligence resources would have to be redeployed to fill that gap of information, taking money and people away from vital missions in the Middle East and East Asia. It’s unclear as to the real reasons behind the Trump administration posturing over New START, although they’ve made some vague statements about China and unhappiness with the verification methods. What we do know is that the major players in the Trump administration do not seem to be fond of this treaty and that we may very well be reliant on immediate action from the incoming Biden administration. 

The United Kingdom has a responsibility to avoid a nuclear arms race between two great powers and we have options available to us. As former Minister of State for Security, I attempted to make this a key defence policy for our government. Unfortunately, negotiations between myself and senior Conservative leadership did not complete before the governmental collapse, but I will lay out my arguments in the hope that the Defence Secretary is spurred into action by this article. First and foremost, we could offer to join the treaty as a nuclear power allied with the United States. When the United States brought up the issue of China during negotiations, the Russians indicated that they would like to see the United Kingdom and France sign the treaty too. This would go a long way into showing our good faith and desire to keep the treaty in place whilst not restricting our aims to modernise and renew Trident. We could also set up a diplomatic back channel between Moscow and Washington, allowing a country with a long history of high class diplomacy to act as a third party arbitrator whose sole aim is to see the renewal of the deal. Finally, we can encourage the Biden administration to make the extension an immediate priority, ensuring that New START does not expire before they are able to negotiate a new deal. 

It is clear that New START has been a resounding success, and is one step in the long path of global denuclearisation. It is also clear that the extension of this deal, whilst attempts are made to negotiate a lower number of allowed warheads, should be a policy aim for any government intending to prevent a nuclear arms race between two great powers. It is my hope that this article will encourage our government to make this an immediate defence policy and begin talks with the Trump administration, the Biden transition team and the Kremlin in order to facilitate the renewal of the treaty. Without it, the world would be a less safe place for the United Kingdom and its people. 

Coalition faces questions as Welsh Government denies Secretary’s meeting claims.

A rocky start to life for the Lab-Lib Government has hit another bump this evening, as questions to the Welsh Secretary and Welsh Government resulted in divergent claims from both parties over the status of Port Talbot talks. The fate of Port Talbot and the thousands of jobs have been in uncertainty as the region and factory face hard times. The Welsh government has long sought assistance from Westminster to save these jobs and support the local economy but relations between Wales and Westminster over the fate of Port Talbot and the extent of support have been strained. 

In response to questions from Telegraph journalist Tres Commas, newly appointed Welsh Secretary NeatSaucer said that the government was “doing it’s level best to save all jobs at Port Talbot”. NeatSaucer also went on to say they were “in discussions at present” with the Welsh Gov, and that the Welsh Gov had been “co-operative”. He went on to say “We are discussing implementing the Unity Plan and exploring other solutions to save our workers, so yes.” The Unity plan refers to prospal to support Port Talbot which has yet to be approved by Parliament or the Welsh government as of yet. 

Conversations between that Telegraph journalist and the First Minister of Wales SecretarySalami have placed the Welsh Secretary’s account into question however. The First Minister said that while the Secretary “contacted us to schedule a meeting”, no meeting had taken place. The First Minister was keen to praise the Welsh Unity Governments plans on Port Talbot, saying “it will go a long way in saving jobs in the area and at the steel mill”. When asked once more “Has there been any discussions concerning the unity plan between you and the new WM govt ?” The Secretary once again responded clearly saying “No not yet.”

This comes as another source of tension for the Phoenix government has just into the first few days of their tenure the government has run into troubles with leaks that put into question their Brexit strategy and direction for the government. Yesterday the Government expelled the former EFRA Secretary on grounds he was leaking sensitive government information. It has been stormy waters for the new government, with the Queen’s Speech still yet to be presented to the House.

The conflicting accounts from Cardiff Bay and Westminster are a fresh headache for Lily’s government, who have endured a subpar start to the government. NeatSaucer will likely now face further questions and scrutiny over his handling of talks between himself and Cardiff Bay.

The LabLib Coalition and the Welsh Government have been reached out to for comment. This post will be updated when comment is provided.

Shadow Environment Secretary found guilty of assaulting police officer.

The Shadow Secretary of State for Environment Kate Kwahena was convicted of an assault on a police constable at the City of London Magistrates Court today.

The Shadow Cabinet Minister was arrested during the Nature Rebellion protests where Green Party co-leader HKNorman was also arrested. They were convicted of criminal damage, not vandalism as reported yesterday, and fined £1500 after graffiting Winston Churchill’s statue. 

Today at a trial at the City of London Magistrates Court, Kwahena pled guilty to the charge and was sentenced to do 80 hours unpaid work, alongside being prohibited from attending any protests linked to Nature Revolution for the next five months.

Kwahena admitted that she struck a police officer who had slammed her to the ground during the protest. This happened shortly after the Lord Chancellor /u/Vitiating was egged and the police converged on the protest to ensure his safe passage through the affected area.

In the closing statement, the Judge said: “I understand there were mitigating circumstances which caused you to come quick to anger. I can also see that as an MP and an upstanding member of society that you are unlikely to offend again.

“However as an MP, you are meant to be someone that people look up to in society. That means you cannot get away with striking a police officer, no matter the circumstances in which it happened.

“I also believe that if you cannot control your temper and impulses when attending a protest that it should be some time before you return to one. After this prohibition order has ended, I ask that you consider this before returning to one as if you end up back in this court on the same charge, the judge will not look on this so kindly.