Government under fire for ignoring M481



At the beginning of the term the Clegg government took the controversial decision to abolish the Minister for Veterans Affairs which had been set up in the first Blurple government. Both the Libertarians and Labour pledged in their manifestos to retain the role. Earlier in the term the MP for Black Country and LPUK Defence spokesperson tabled a motion urging the government to reinstate the position. The motion passed 48 votes to 45 with a turnout of 99%.

Since then the government has been quiet on the issue and has not responded to the motion’s passage. The Leader of the LPUK questioned the Prime Minister on this motion on the 28th May. The Prime Minister told the House of Commons that he did not believe that the appointment of a Veterans’ Minister is especially relevant or useful when such a role can be adequately fulfilled by the Secretary of State for Defence. He also said the composition of the government was best left to the government and not parliament when he justified ignoring parliament on this matter.

The appointment of a space force minister into the MOD has raised some eyebrows in Westminster and is especially controversial considering the government’s stance on the veterans affairs motion. Earlier this evening markthemonkey888 wrote a letter to the Defence Secretary attacking the government fiercely. He accused the government of using the welfare of veterans as a  political football and putting their welfare on the line. He said the government’s moves were blatantly disrespectful to veterans. 

The Telegraph asked the Leader Of The Opposition to comment and they spoke to us:


“It is quite disheartening to see that the Conservative Party have ignored the will of parliament by deciding to not follow M481 and re-establish the position of Minister of State for Veterans Affairs, however considering that previous motions haven’t been responded to in a satisfactory manner by this government in the past I am not surprised that they’ve continued to ignore M481.

At the same time I believe that the people are starting to recognise this negative attitude from the Conservatives and their recent decline in the national opinion polls indicates that people are growing tired of this behaviour and warming up to the positive vision that is being proposed by the Labour Party.”

ARichTeaBiscuit

The LPUK Defence spokesperson markthemonkey888 told the Telegraph that’s it” an absolute shame that the Tories claim to represent veterans yet purposefully ignore a motion passed by the House of Commons. The government needs to step up and start being accountable to the house and the British people”

The Defence Secretary told the Telegraph the following:



“As a former Minister for Veterans’ Affairs myself, I am capable of, and passionate, about, standing up for the rights of veterans as the Secretary of State. I have been taking a personal lead on our veterans policy and do not require a junior minister to assist in that duty.”

MatthewHinton1234

The government is often finding itself at loggerheads with parliament and with the tories tumbling in the polls sliding behind Labour, it’s clear they have a tough few weeks coming up ahead with a collapse in the Northern Ireland Exec and a Justice devolution referendum.  The Telegraph will be here to cover the news and turmoil in Westminster.

A rational approach to devolution [Op-Ed]

BBC Parliament - Welsh Assembly

The incumbent Conservative government has failed the United Kingdom on devolution. They have failed to learn their mistakes from the failed royal commission which led to nowhere, indeed I would argue that they refuse to learn. The Tory Party doesn’t want a lasting devolution settlement, what they want is to stop devolution at all costs. First they wanted to wait for the Senedd to speak when they thought it would rule in their favour. When it appeared the Senedd opposed the Tories anti democratic sentiment and anti-devolution agenda they stopped caring and decided to ignore the Senedd.

For the tories the Senedd is only worth listening to when it suits the political aims of the bullingdon boys. The Foreign Secretary tried to impose a ⅔ requirement to pass a referendum through parliament and was rightly laughed at by parliament and condemned from parties ranging from mine to the TPM. 

The fact is the tories have done everything they possibly can to stop a justice devolution referendum. It’s been excuse after excuse with no regard for the Welsh people, the Senedd or democracy, with anti democratic amendments that would make it impossible to enact change even with a higher than average turnout and a substantial majority of Wales in favour.  The Welsh Conservative Party leader RhysDallen puts party before country, even as Wales was underfunded by billions in the last budget, he acts as more of a front man for Conservative Central Office wales rather than a Welsh Conservative. The fact for the tories is that Wales, like the other devolved nations comes second to their polling in England.

The recent Welsh election showed that the welsh people have an appetite for further devolution returning pro devolution parties to the Senedd defeating the Welsh Conservatives regressive agenda, and outright opposition to Wales gaining powers. I embrace conciliatory unionism which means that I believe in the union but I passionately believe all four corners of the United Kingdom should be happy and content in the union. And each polity should be able to exercise by its democratic processes choice in determining the level of autonomy available to it. It is unacceptable to ignore the democratically elected Welsh government as the Prime Minister is doing, indeed this will only risk splitting the Union still further. I call on the Prime Minister to show real leadership and engage constructively with the Welsh government to find a long lasting devolution settlement.

I am sympathetic to the idea of more devolution as this is clearly what the Welsh  people are longing for however we can not afford to take the gung ho approach of the Labour Party who would devolve too much too fast. We need to ensure the Welsh government can cope and utilise their new powers with a gradual transition as well as ensuring the Welsh people are able to have an informed debate on all these powers before deciding to do so. We have to strike the balance right and if the Prime Minister and his colleagues abdicate their duty of uniting the union I and other opposition leaders will have to step up to the plate.

In order for the LPUK to support further devolution I want to see the justice devolution referendum completed so we can deal with one issue at a time as well as being able to review how Wales copes with its new powers should the Welsh people vote that way. Reports in the press said I warned Salami to halt his devolution demands, this is a gross misrepresentation of what I said. The First Minister should absolutely push for what he believes. We will take into account the will of the Welsh parliament in all of this and will not support devolution for devolution’s sake. We need to review all measures carefully and take time over this to ensure that the powers that are being devolved will be in the interests of Wales and the rest of the UK.

Let me be  absolutely clear that no Tory threat will impact my decision on this. Threats are immature and goes to show the extent the tories will go to stop devolution. I will make my mind up based on the facts and the Senedd, not what any  Tory Minister in CCHQ has to say.

We have a huge opportunity to come to a lasting devolution settlement and I wish Secretary_Salami all the best in doing this. We must however reject calls to devolve as much as possible as fast as possible from some in Labour and calls to stop devolution at all costs. The LPUK will provide the sensible middle ground in this and will help break the deadlock on this issue and unite the country.

This article was written by /u/Friedmanite19, Former Chancellor Of The Exchequer and Leader Of The Libertarian Party

Labour reach deal with Plaid Cymru and PUP in bid to become First Minister


The Telegraph learns that Welsh Labour has reached a coalition deal with Plaid Cymru and Plaid Pobl, one which would leave them 4 short of commanding a majority. In a deal that would make /u/Secretary_Salami First Minister, Plaid Pobl and Plaid Cymru would need to vote in full, alongside four additional AMs from either the Conservatives or Libertarians, in order for it to pan out.

In the deal, Plaid Pobl secures a cabinet position, despite only having two AM’s. They will no doubt be pleased that Labour is willing to work with them despite being formed as the result of a split with the Party earlier this year.

The leaked welsh cabinet

The left-wing coalition plans to establish a state-owned ‘Welsh Investment Bank’, with proposals to raise income tax by 1p on the higher and additional rates. This means those earning over £51,050 can expect to see their tax rises in line with Westminster undoing the Blurple coalitions move to mitigate tax rises from the Clegg government’s budget. Other plans include scrapping VAT reporting for small businesses and undertaking the AMRC Project North Wales.

In what marks a radical shift to the extreme left, the coalition document also includes plans to nationalise 50% of the elderly care sector by 2030, alongside taking the post office into public ownership.  Furthermore the new proposed Government also wish to roll out the controversial ‘Ambercare’ in Wales and provide free contraception to anyone below the age of 25.

The economic agenda seen here is one that we would have expected from a left wing government and will no doubt draw fierce criticism from parties on the right.

On the hot issue of the day, the coalition, as expected, would support a referendum on justice and policing. They would also negotiate a wider devolution settlement which presumably means they would seek further devolution from Westminster. Secretary_Salami told the Telegraph that, in their view, Welsh devolution should include corporation tax, S4C (which is a welsh language broadcasting agency and TV channel) , air passenger duty, Sunday trading and power over tax bands akin to the Scottish model . This is likely to lead to another standoff between the Conservative government in Westminster and Cardiff Bay.

Likewise, the transport section includes a whole set of infrastructure projects including the electrification of the Southern Valley lines and the building of a third Menai bridge on the purple route. Elsewhere we see a commitment to raise education funding to the UK average and a £10 million funding boost to Sport Wales alongside a £7 million boost for Parc Adfer.

It is unclear whether this platform is affordable with the raising of the additional and higher rate to 1p only raising approximately £60 million. The coalition platform contains some big spending pledges and it’s questionable whether it is all affordable. It is unlikely Secretary_Salami would find support in parliament for his ambitious economic agenda.

The fate of the First Minister election is unclear, with Conservative leader RhysDallen announcing he would not stand for the position himself. The Conservative leader said he would not vote for Labour which leaves the only option he can take as RON, it is also unlikely that the Welsh Libertarians will back Welsh Labour to take power. The Telegraph asked Mr Dallen for his thoughts:


“Whilst I am more than happy to see investment into Wales, the questions will come at funding and numbers in the lobby. As I have already made clear to Mr Salami, I am willing to work with him. Some of these plans, shall we say, have the potential to end up as an over promise and an under deliver. I wish them all the best and we will work on a case by case basis as a pragmatic opposition which will support sensible legislation but oppose promises that cannot be fulfilled”

RhysDallen



When pressed on his support for nationalisation pledges, he appeared to be opposed to the nationalisation of the post office however did not rule out supporting the government’s proposed nationalisation of half the elderly care sector saying he would “fight for the best quality of care which often involves the utilisation of private sector expertise”. He told the Telegraph that the Tories believed elderly care should be available for everyone but this does not “always mean a nationalised service which would prevent streamlining and expert assistance from the private sector”. It appears that the Conservatives are leaving their options going forward and aren’t as opposed to Welsh Labour’s plan as many would have thought.

Secretary_Salami sounded optimistic and told the Telegraph he believed there would be a majority for his government in the end and argued that other parties were likely to see that Labour are the only party under which a justice devolution referendum is secure. He did however say he expects it to go second or third preference votes and said it could very well take another First Minister election.

I believe that every party leader acknowledges that another general election is in no one’s best interest- not the parties, not the candidates and not the country’s interest- and therefore I am optimistic I will secure a mandate in the end.

Secretary_Salami

With Blurple talks falling through earlier in the week it appears like this Labour lead government is the only viable Government at the present time. This could change if another First Minister election is called.

The Welsh assembly is bitterly divided and it looks like this set to continue with potentially more First Minister elections, maybe even a snap election is the deadlock continues. 

NeatSaucer cups serious flak as accusations of Tories and “BAME lynching” made in Commons

The comments of Shadow Communities Secretary, /u/NeatSauce have caused outrage, as he accused the Conservatives of supporting racism, amongst other incendiary remarks on the future of BAME persons under Tory rule.

The Shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, & Local Government gave a controversial speech in the House of Commons levying serious accusations against Conservative MP’s.  He told BAME communities that voted for the Conservatives that they would “RIP (rest in peace)” as a result of their vote, adding that the tories did not care if those voters were “randomly lynched”.

Mr Saucer said, as recorded in Hansard on June 7th:

“It is surprising yet not difficult for us to cope up that the Tories are a party of racism and condemning racism is so tough for them. Using a commonly known acronym, RIP to the BAME communities who voted Tory. Your Tory MP does not care for you, note that, so tomorrow, you get randomly lynched then the Tories do not care, they care only if you give them votes and then forget you after that. “

NeatSaucer

These comments were in response to a motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats on policing reform, where the Conservatives indicated they would be abstaining due to the fact they did not wish to interfere with an independent investigation.

The author of the motion, /u/thechattyshow told us that the comments were not appropriate .LPUK peer Greejatus told the Telegraph that the comments were not only “not only offensive  to right-wing members of the BAME community, but it also does nothing to support or help the much-needed movement to recognise the equality of all race” and said that “no political party has sole ‘ownership’ of the struggle for racial equality, and it is high time the Labour Party understood that simple fact.”

A Conservative spokesperson  told the Telegraph the following:



‘We are shocked by the unprovoked, vitriolic and deeply harmful and offensive comments of the Shadow HCLG Secretary, which have no bearing to reality at all and are wholly unsubstantiated. We urge the Labour Party to distance themselves from the baseless and deleterious accusations made by the Shadow Secretary. The Conservative and Unionist Party is proud of its BAME members and will always stand with the BAME community.’

The article will updated with a Labour comment when one is received.

Senior Sunrise sources claim Shadow Chancellor “planned to attend state banquet under Labour-led government” to avoid press scrutiny

DOMINIC LAWSON: Jeremy Corbyn's likely successor is even more ...
Jgm0228 would have attended a state banquet under a Salami government “to not make a story” as to why he declined.

The state visit of Donald Trump has stirred up controversy with the Shadow Chancellor recently accusing the Foreign Secretary of failing to condemn apparent presidential indifference towards Nazis as well asaccusing the President of United States of embracing white supremacist policies. The Shadow Chancellor lashed out at the Foreign Secretary, claiming the rise of the far-right did not concern him whilst also levying criticism at others who have decided to attend the state banquet. Another senior member of the Shadow Cabinet, HKNorman, who recently got tied up in a plagiarism scandal, announced they would also be boycotting the state banquet. 

However, despite this rhetoric from the Shadow Chancellor, it turns out the Sunrise government which he played a key role in, had planned to invite President Trump on a state visit themselves. Secretary_Salami confirmed “the Sunrise government chose to continue Blurple 1’s pledge of welcoming the President and First Lady of the United States to Britain. On the table would have been the return to the JCPOA, which was Sunrise’s flagship foreign policy objective.” He also told the Telegraph that as Prime Minister he would have attended the banquet, with the President also present.

The Telegraph also learned that the Shadow Chancellor would have attended the state visit to “to not make a story”. He also asked for a ‘good spot’ at the banquet, according to a former sunrise ministers. The Shadow Chancellor has been at the throat of politicians attending the banquet in recent days, however this revelation could undermine his stance.

The Telegraph spoke to the Shadow Chancellor who confirmed that he would indeed attend the banquet if invited, and also challenged the Tories to ring him up. Informing the Telegraph, the Shadow Chancellor said he would use the banquet to make policy differences clear and raise a “large array of concerns” with the President. He argued that politicians going to flatter the President are doing ‘a disservice to the nation’ and it was acceptable for him to attend the banquet invitation because he would challenge the President.

We then asked the Shadow Chancellor if he had an objection to right wing politicians attending.



“I don’t have any confidence in their ability to do anything but kiss the ring so to speak. If they don’t have the moral compass to care about human rights, I don’t see what’s stopping them.”

jgm0228


Taking the Shadow Chancellor’s previous behaviour into account this is likely to come across a PR stunt. However, the Shadow Chancellor has refused to deny allegations that he was only attending the banquet to avoid controversy in the press over declining. He accused this of being vague rumours, however this account was directly challenged by some of the Shadow Chancellor’s former cabinet colleagues with multiple former Sunrise ministers confirming the Telegraph’s accounts. The Shadow Chancellor fought back arguing that “As a junior minister at the time I did not have the authority to unilaterally decide the line under CCR. If indeed what I will again say are your self described vague inclinations are indeed correct.” When asked whether his career was more important than his principles he argued that he did not want to give up the “government perch” over attending a banquet and was “quite busy fighting insufferable libertarians and their anti climate change combatting agenda”. 

The Telegraph asked the Prime Minister for a statement in response to the Shadow Chancellor’s revelation:



“That would seem to be contrary to the sentiments expressed in some of his recent statements regarding the plans for the President’s visit, although I’m sure they would, in such an event, whip up some… imaginative reason why attending would be justified and, in fact, only proper. Of course, this would have to account for the absence of the Shadow Home Secretary, who has indicated that instead of attending they will be protesting, and for the rather strange silence from the Leader of the Opposition on whether or not they’ll attend. Labour’s response, on the whole, has been muddled. I think the main point here is that it is vital that one acknowledges the importance of the State Banquet as a celebration of the cherished ‘special relationship’ between the US and the UK — a celebration of a partnership that has a true global reach and can achieve lasting change by addressing some of the major issues that the modern world faces. I should hope that this is something all can rally behind, that all can celebrate and appreciate.”

Yukub

The Leader of the LPUK told the Telegraph that he believed Labour had no principles and that this was another “massive PR stunt but no one in the country is going to buy it”

Despite heavy criticism, it is clear a Labour-led government would have also given President Trump a state visit and it is doubtful that the Shadow Chancellor or Shadow Home Secretary would have attended protests given they were members of the Cabinet. 

For opponents of the Labour Party it will be clear that they have one rule for the Tories and an entirely separate rule for themselves.

Government faces defeat over Philippines

The new minority Conservative government faces its first major parliamentary defeat losing 48 votes to 42 with an opposition motion passing

The government faced its first parliamentary defeat of the term with M491 passing with 48 votes in favour and 42 votes against.  The motion was tabled by the LPUK by MP for Manchester North /u/threecommas who is a rising star in the parliamentary Libertarian Party.  The motion passed on the back of LPUK,Labour and DRF. Every Tory MP voted against and most Liberal Democrats also backing the government.

The Prime Minister in response to the defeat told the Telegraph that “Realistically, a minority government such as ours should expect that it cannot always command a majority of the House in some cases. This is an understanding on which many of this country’s governments have been based upon. It is regrettable that the House didn’t subscribe to our point of view, but such events are reasonably common for any government.”

The motion calls for targeted sanctions on the members of the Duterte administration such as economic freezes and travel bans. It also calls for a condemnation of the administration who have played a role in the  extrajudicial killing of tens of thousands which has drawn condemnation by NGO’s and charities.

The government has faced criticism by Labour and the Libertarian for its approach to the Philippines. /u/apth10 attacked the government is the weekly publication of Labour weekly accusing the Conservatives of being fine  with “unsubstantiated killings not allowed under the rule of law to continue” and “ bashing parliamentarians who have deep concern for these things. “ and accused them of cosying up with dictators.

The Foreign Secretary was asked for comment by the telegraph:

The government has consulted on the recommendations made by the motion and FCO civil servants have indicated the proposed actions will not be successful. We will therefore be using the UN Report as a jumping off point to rally the international community to address the concerns highlighted by the motion, as many states are not going to address the issue without the report. To do so would be to ‘jump the gun’. In the spirit of cooperation, the government has already opened up communications with the LPUK to best ensure the aims of the motion are met”

InfernoPlato


From this comment we know the government are setting up talks with the Libertarians who were the authors of this motion. It’s clear that the government won’t be following the specific points in the motion but will be upholding the aims of the motion through  a more multilateral strategy

The passage of this motion shows that without the support of the LPUK the government could lose more votes ahead. The Liberal Democrats appear firmly behind the government on foreign policy but it appears that the LPUK has its own ideas and can use its position to inflict defeat on the government. The Libertarians however supported the government on the DRF China motion and appear to largely be backing the government on the Serbia motion. Conciliatory rhetoric from the Foreign Secretary also shows that the government may be more open to working with the LPUK on foreign policy issues moving forward.

This motion passing is a stark reminder to the government that it is a minority government and that it needs to work cross-party in order to pass its agenda.

Opposition backtracks as Labour withdraws M493

In a stunning u-turn this week, Shadow Chancellor JGM’s motion calling for an investigation into the behaviour of the British press was pulled, following wide consternation from political and journalistic quarters. 

Former Liberal Democrat Leader and heavyweight  /u/demon3472 was the first to speak on the matter calling the motion “reactionary, undemocratic, populist nonsense,” labelling itas an attack on the free press,arguing that the exchange of money for stories is common and should be recorded in MP’s expenses. Later on in the debate the Shadow Chancellor accused the ex Lib-Dem leaders’ mindset leading to the rise of Viktor Orban. The Duke for Redcar quickly respond with his view arguing that the press in Hungary have tried to stop the rise of Orban and Hungary now has one of the lowest press freedom indexes in Europe. The Duke of RedCar sharply attacked the Shadow Chancellor telling him not to discuss things he did not understand to justify non -sentient rules.

 The Shadow Chancellor then began discussing Scots laws, in an interesting display of what some have called “whataboutism”. The Conservatives and Libertarians came out in force on the issue, with several Tory cabinet members including the Chancellor, International Trade Secretary and Culture Secretary. Labour also appeared split on the issue, with the Northern Irish Shadow Secretary simply saying “No” in the debate, in an apparent break of Shadow Cabinet unity. Captain_Plat_2258 was among the only ones to defend the motion, saying they were “appalled by the outrage from across the aisles at this bill” and called for the government to investigate the press. This was lambasted by LPUK Deputy Leader Seimer1234, saying Labour either wanted a “repeat of leveson” or to put the government in charge of investigating the press, which he described as an “unworkable….conflict of interest”

Matters soonbecame worse for Labour, with a letter signed by editors/owners of the Telegraph, Times, Indepedent, Guardian, Sun, Express and CATOUK published, calling for the motion to be withdrawn. Pressure was quickly mounting on Labour. 

ARichTeaBiscuit finally succumbed to mounting pressure, and withdrew the motion. This was an embarrassing climbdown for the Leader, who will now have to face growing questions about whether they signed off on the motion, or did the Shadow Chancellor act unilaterally.

This debacle is yet another example of Labour communications breakdown, with shadow ministers rebelling against the party line, and the press making clear its displeasure at attempts from Labour to regulate it. It has been yet another embarrassing episode for a party already deep in scandal, and will only cause more friction in an already dividing party.

Shadow Home Secretary under fire for plagiarism

Shadow Home Secretary HKNorman is under pressure today, after their speech in the Commons on the Police and Civil Liberties bill, was found to be almost identical to a previous speech on the matter a few months ago.

The LPUK Leader /u/friedmanite19 had first spotted something was up with the Shadow Home Secretaries speech when they claimed that members from all sides of the house had spoken in favour of the bill taking to twitter to point out that no such event took place. Later on the Prime Minister /u/Yukub discovered that HKNorman had indeed copied their speech in the commons from a few months ago. This seems to explain the Shadow Home Secretaries confusion over what had been said in the chamber. 

The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, & Local Government /u/brookheimer also noticed that HKNorman had been added to the authorship clause despite nothing changing in the bill. Labour are yet to tell the House of Commons which clause HKNorman wrote.  Recently Tory MP’s have been accusing Labour MP’s of making speeches to meet a debate quota and have challenged the quality of them. The Secretary of State for Transport /u/brexitglroy read word for word from Wikipedia on the 2nd reading debate of B951 to mock labour and presumably the incident where /u/pavanpur04 who was minister for work and welfare was forced to resign following copying a statement on loneliness.

The Prime Minister gave the Telegraph the following statement:

“I am  dismayed to see that the Labour Party has not only done a copy-paste job and bring this Bill before the House again in such a sloppy manner, without even bothering to change the opening speech. Imagine my surprise when I noticed that the current Shadow Home Secretary, HKNorman, has now been listed as a co-author, and chose to inaugurate their new-found status by simply copying the statement they originally made, some three months ago, without even bothering to see if those comments were applicable or factually correct in the current situation. Surely the people demand and deserve better of their elected representatives, and it reflects badly on the Labour Party.”

Yukub

The Leader of The Liberal Democrats questioned whether copying your own work was plagiarism when approached for comment by the telegraph. The Home Secretary /u/model-willem also attacked HKNorman in the commons for copying their speech.The Telegraph reached out to a member of the Labour Leadership who declined to comment in a serious manner.

There is no doubt pressure will pile on HKNorman and Labour. It is unclear whether HKNorman will face the same fate as pavanpur04 but only time will tell. 

“Labour sacked me solely for PR reasons” claims Former Labour frontbencher

SmashBrosGuys2933 tells the Telegraph his sacking was purely a PR stunt in a tell all interview.

The controversial Labour frontbench reshuffle has raised the eyebrows of many pundits and the wider public, with the inclusion of more than 30 positions ,which is more seats than the party possess, and the revelation that shadow cabinet members had not been told what roles they had, meaning they found out via the mainstream news. 

Today the Telegraph had the opportunity to speak to one of the victims of the reshuffle, /u/SmashBrosGuys2933, who was fired from the Labour frontbench over controversial comments where he asked people to “name a single POC billionaire”, arguing that the LPUK were a pro-white party, defending a controversial article penned by senior Labour member, RedWolf. RedWolf, has since bagged themselves a role in the shadow cabinet, as shadow leader of the commons.

SmashBros told the Telegraph that he was unaware he had been fired, and the party leadership had not informed him  before making a public statement  that he had been fired from frontline roles. 

It also appeared that SmashBros had not clocked Labour big-whig, ThePootisPower’s, statement 4 days earlier telling the Telegraph that if “he made a statement he forgot to tell me”. 

A running theme throughout this reshuffle appears to be a lack of communication with the Labour backbench, and wider party. 

SmashBros informed the Telegraph that his comments were not racist and he “will never do anything to demean minorities.” In a shocking revelation he told the Telegraph that the Labour leadership admitted to him that this was a PR move to stop press coverage. This, if true, shows that Labour do not actually find his comments objectionable, but merely commanded an apology as a PR stunt to save their backs, and to oust him from the shadow cabinet. It should also be noted that the decision to announce that Smash was not going to considered for a cabinet posts was during the short lived and quickly botched coalition negotiations with the DRF and TPM for a governing coalition, Labour only appear to care about tackling such comments when they must defend their public image to convince others to coalition with them.

Later on, SmashBros told the Telegraph that he believes that RedWolf should be fired as “the originator of the issue” and he told this paper he believed he was being unfairly treated,stating that the reason RedWolf wasn’t fired was due to him being “a seasoned veteran”. SmashBros also went on to say that newer members across the commons, not only in Labour, are treated with contempt.

The reason he hasn’t is because he’s a seasoned veteran, whereas I am relatively new.

SmashBrosGuys2933 on why RedWolf wasn’t sacked.

SmashBros believed he was getting an unjustified proportion of the blame and argued that “The article was approved by Captainographer, the Press Officer and the leadership before being published in Labour Weekly. “and told us that he felt“they must share some blame for this controversy”.

Labour’s ThePootisPower told us that “SmashBros was removed from cabinet because the comments they made were inappropriate and frankly a bit racist in nature”. He told the Telegraph he believes SmashBros is not racist but “it would not be appropriate to reward that sort of behaviour with a frontbench position.” He also apologised for not talking to SmashBros about his sacking earlier.

If Labour thought firing SmashBros would have reduced press coverage, they couldn’t have been more wrong with the former Chief Whip coming out swinging and speaking out against the Labour Leadership’s decisions.

Gren_Gnat, who defended SmashBros, and denied that they could in any way be wrong before deleting his comments, also got an appointment to the shadow cabinet. 

This will add to Labour’s woes and shows that there is a division in the party between older and newer members, most importantly it exposes Labour’s true intentions behind firing SmashBros and shows an image of a party more focused on political expediency and public relations than racism.

The economics of the far right – A rebuttal [Op-Ed]

New Zealand should be a 'principled voice' as US-Iran tensions ...
Captain_Plat_2258 recently in the Independent tried to ‘educate’ me and imply I had been tricked by Nazi propaganda.

The Labour Party have been acting hysterically over social media for the last few days because, shock horror, the third largest party in this country would not sit silently whilst called racist and far-right. First I shall explore the so-called ‘far-right’ in the UK and across Europe, and then I shall tackle the claims raised by Labour on Nazi Germany.

The most famous far-right party in the UK is the BNP. Nick Griffin’s BNP  believed in the nationalisation of numerous industries and adopted protectionism into the party platform, thus firmly rejecting economic liberalism. The BNP has also called for the “subordination of the power of the City to the power of the government”. The BNP were heavy opponents of privatisation and used slogans such as “Public service, not corporate profit”. Now these are words you would expect to hear out of the Shadow Chancellors mouth. The BNP were firmly economically interventionist. The BNP, like most fascist parties, were collectivist in nature, and if anyone picks up the BNP manifesto or reads their economic policy, they will find it has far more in common with the Labour Party than the LPUK. The BNP claims “the other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism”. Collectivism,nationalisation and intervention are the antithesis of our beliefs.

Looking over across the pond, Marine Le Penn is often labelled as ‘far-right’, and when you look at her economic platform, you once again see that it is interventionist. During the presidential campaign, Le Pen promised to maintain the 35-hour work week, lower the retirement age to 60, establish a purchasing-power bonus for people earning less than €1,500 per month, nationalise the highways and to reduce the price of gas, electricity and train journeys by 5 percent. She was an economic interventionist in comparison to Macron, who on the whole was an economic liberal. A common trend of far-right parties is to have heavily interventionist economic policies and to deny this fact is to display economic illiteracy.

Now, I will note I never compared the Labour Party to the Nazi party, but their MP’s and members are always looking for a strawman and another political point to score so they can virtue signal and stand on the moral high ground. Recently, a Labour member published a link claiming they were ‘educating’ me on Nazi economics. In short, it argued that the Nazis loved private property and launched a wave of privatisation, and therefore did not have a left wing economic programme.The privatisation was  “applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference,” as laid out in the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels.The Nazis instituted major public works projects such as the Autobahn, promised full employment, and dramatically increased government spending. Joseph Goebbels in a propaganda leaflet for the Nazis stated:


I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people.

Joseph Goebbels

The  Nazis were disdainful of capitalism. The Nazi government did not own the means of production in Germany, but they certainly controlled them. They set up control boards, cartels, and state-sponsored monopolies which they then carefully planned and regulated.

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis, the actual ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. It was the German government that decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. Market exchange did not exist in Nazi Germany. 

The idea that the Nazis were some sort of free market cult is nonsense, and the idea that they were right wing economically is laughable.

The Nazis on the whole adopted Keynesian economic policy, with Keynes himself implicitly admiring their programme:


“[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

John Maynard Keynes


Proto-Keynesians such as Joan Robinson claimed “Hitler found a cure to employment before Keynes was finished explaining it” Hitler adopted Keynesian economic policy. I would encourage people to read the 25 point plan of the national socialists in 1920 and tell me that they are somehow free market capitalists. Mussolini referred to the economics of John Maynard Keynes as a “useful introduction to fascist economics”, and he argued that fascism entirely agreed with Keynes, a statement clearly proven by the massive interventionist programme in fascist Italy, but for the purpose of time I won’t dive into that in this article.

Friederch Hayek was absolutely right when he described national socialism and socialism as having common routes in central planning and empowering the state over the individual. Labour are now on their high horses over their poorly put together article, which does not understand nuance and conveniently omits many facts and creates strawman arguments.

u/friedmanite19 is the Leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom and is the MP for Somerset and Bristol.