“The First Minister abused his position….in a co-ordinated attempt with his colleagues in Northern Ireland to go after those he did not like” and a “Coalition of the willing to defend the Kurds”- The Tommy1Boys interview

This article was written by Seimer.

Tommy1Boys was recently elected Leader of the Clibs

Tommy1Boys has been the political centre of gravity for the past week, as stunning leaks revealed in the Telegraph showed accusations of inner government fighting, and allegations of blackmail and kompromat gathering by the now former Foreign Secretary. Just days after this, he would be elected Leader of the Classical Liberals, and be appointed Deputy Prime Minister. Now, in an exclusive first interview with the new Leader, he addresses his new role, his actions as Foreign Secretary and the growing scandal facing his political career.


Seimer: So firstly, congratulations on your victory. What is your major goal in terms of your new post that you hope to achieve?

Tommy: Thank you. I want to use my new position of giving a voice and delivering for those who rely on the government, but often don’t feel connected to it. The Government is already making strides on that front such as workers rights legislation, and I want us to make that at the heart of every legislation, statement, white paper and action that this government takes.

Seimer: Now, before discussing you work as foreign secretary I would like to ask you about the story everyone’s talking about, the CountBrandenburg leaks. Do you believe that your approach to the First Minister and Executive was as the First Minister put it, “tantamount to black mail”?

Tommy: No I obviously don’t. I made the fair point that if we are asked in Ministers Questions about meetings with the NI Executive, we would be honest that the NI Secretary had asked for meetings and none had yet happened. More broadly, I am disappointed the First Minister abused his position as a confident and yes a friend to score political points with out of context screenshots and a coordinated attempt with his colleagues in Northern Ireland to go after those he did not like.

Seimer: So you view this as the Executive scoring political points against the government?

Tommy: I think the First Minister abused his position in the Executive to go after those he does not like, that being apparently myself and Twisted. I do not think the majority of the Executive wanted to or would use it against the Westminster Government, for whom some members have privately expressed confidence in, for example, the NI Secretary. Although what they say privately and publicly is different, which is not a surprise.

Seimer: You said earlier that the leaks by the First Minister were out of context, he strenuously denies that, which leaks in particular do you view as misleading or out of context as you put it?

Tommy: So let me take the shipyards. I at no point defended nationalisation of it. It was brought to my attention that the NI executive did not support nationalisation, a suggestion floated by the Chancellor. I spoke with the Chancellor straight away and he made clear once the NI Executive rejected it, that it would not happen. Indeed the Chancellor openly told the NI Executive he would not “force” things onto them if they disapproved. Instead, they accused him of trying to do just that. Brandy came to me with a concern, and I worked to ensure that concern was dealt with and the Ni Executive were listened to. Apparently that constitutes ignoring the NI Executive?

Seimer: Did you believe the plan to nationalise H+W from the Chancellor was a good or serious proposal?

Tommy: I am not personally knowledgeable enough on the specific place in question. Haven spoken to the Chancellor, it is clear it was made as a suggestion which was removed once it became clear the NI Executive would not support it. The chancellor did what he should have done, put forward a suggestion, had a discussion, and listened to the NI Executive. Exactly the opposite of what those in the NI Executive are saying happened.

Seimer: So you say those leaks were misleading, does that mean the leaks regarding your dislike of leadership opponent Star, your dislike of the Executive, your description of Twisted as a “fuckwit” and Labour as “fucking fucks” and the kompromat document you said you were keeping on Saunders were all accurate representations of what was said?

Tommy: The government has recognised some of the past issues and communication is an issue dealt with long before these leaks.

Seimer: Iran has been the issue which has largely defined your term so far, is it still the British view that a return to the JCPOA is a likely goal?

Tommy: So. Yes the Government is working hard on a JCPOA deal. We strongly believe it is in the national interest, and the interest of international security, for Iran, the US and others to be inside the JCPOA. Obviously negotiating between different partners is difficult and high stakes stuff, but I am pleased of the progress we are making at the G7 although the Kurdish situation has overtaken the agenda right now for obvious reasons.

Seimer: The Kurdish situation, seeing as you brought it up, what is the governments view on the American decision to pull their 1000 troops in the area out?

Tommy: The Government has spoken with President Trump and has secured a commitment to halt the withdrawal of troops in the area. There will then be a transition to a coalition of the willing forces in the region to protect the Kurds. As we speak the Foreign Secretary is preparing to talk to the Kurds to inform them. France and the US have so far committed to this coalition, and talks at the G7 will continue in my role as Deputy Prime Minister to secure support from other countries.

Seimer: That’s quite a dramatic shift, is this coalition committed to preventing a Turkish invasion into the region, as we have seen in the past days?

Tommy: Yes. The Kurds lost thousands in the fight against Daesh. We cannot allow a NATO member to do this. The Kurds are an aly of the UK, we are clear on that front. We are not prepared to abandon them now. This information will all be laid before the Commons in the coming 24 hours.

Seimer: Do you intend to build cross party support including the opposition on this policy?

Tommy: Yes. I shall be briefing my counterparts in the House tonight if possible. I hope that opposition parties will realise this move is in the national interest, and will support our efforts in this regard.

Seimer: Now, I’d like to finally discuss some of the governmental changes that took place today. You are no longer foreign secretary obviously, with willem taking the post, should we expect a continuation of government policy on Iran, Hong Kong and now Kurdistan with the new foreign secretary?

Tommy: I am really pleased to see Willem succeed me in the post of Foreign Secretary. The Government has not changed however, and yes I believe a continuation of government policy on a range of matters will be the case, although obviously with a new person comes a new style..

Seimer: And the big story that appears to be coming out of this reshuffle is changes in CCLG. Does Rhys leaving his post indicate a change in policy regarding the National Culture Day?

Tommy: We recognise that we made a mistake, and we are setting about to rectify that. A change in policy will occur yes.

Seimer: Alright, that’s us, thanks for doing this Tommy

Tommy: No problem

Telegraph: “Tired, Stressed and Rather Ill”. Vitiating to resign as Clib Deputy Leader

Written by Seimer, Telegraph Journalist

In a stunning leak to the Telegraph this evening, we can reveal Sunrise have been hit by yet another resignation, with Vitiaing to resign as deputy leader of the Classical Liberals.

The deputy leader, who is also Justice Secretary, is seen as the favourite to be future leader of the party. The resignation comes as another blow to the government, who have already suffered 11 resignations from cabinet and the loss of their majority.

In the resignation statement of Vitiating, he describes the action as being necessary for his party and his health. He says he “has ceased to relish his leadership duties” and that they have become a “burden”. He describes Sunrise as an “added weight”, and says he has become “tired, stressed and rather ill”.

With the Saunders crisis, and a government under fire, this is another story they certainly don’t need. At the moment, it’s unclear if he will stay on as Justice Secretary. Who the next Deputy Leader will be is uncertain, with CountBrandenburg among the possible candidates.

Vitiating declined to provide a comment for the article.

The classical liberals declined to comment.

Vitiating’s statement to his party

So, this is an announcement I never expected to be making. However, I feel it is necessary not only for the party but for my own health. For the past month, I have ceased to relish in the conducting my leadership duties. They were once a pleasure, but they turned into a burden. With the added weight of Sunrise, I have become tired, stress and rather ill. It is time I put my own health above all. So therefore, it is with deep regret that I announce that after the conclusion of the incoming leadership election, I shall tender my resignation as Deputy Leader. This also means that I am precluding myself from the said leadership election.

Vitiating, former deputy leader

“Press Ganged: Bad legislation restricts the freedom of journalists to publish”


“If reading is regulated, then music, conversation, every incident of social life must be regulated to”

Wrote John Milton in the poem Areopagitica in response to the Licensing Order of 1643, which instituted pre publication licensing in parliamentary England. Effectively recreating the tight state censorship system of the much reviled star chamber. It’s provisions allowed for the search, seizure and destruction of any books offensive to the government and the imprisonment of any offensive writers, printers and publishers.

In an age where opposition parties attempt to tightly restrict media ownership, and others condemn the free press, Miltons warning bears repeating. The media is fallible, we saw its guts laid bare during the Leveson Enquiry but without a strong tradition of investigative journalism we lose an integral part of a free society.

Alas press freedom in Britain is not what it should be, ranked 33rd in the World Press Freedom Index we are behind many other Western European Nations. One major contributing factor to this is the risk to the financial position of newspapers, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 would require a newspaper that declined to join a state backed regulator to pay both sides costs in privacy and defamation cases regardless of the facts of the case.

It’s damaging effect is to deter quality reporting for fear of what reminiscent of the Licensing Order of 1643 a completely arbitrary punishment for journalistic expression. It is therefore gratifying that the government have seized the issue by the nettle and taken steps to remove the condition from statue and do away with the arbitrary financial penalties on investigative journalism by submitting the Crime and Courts amendment bill. It may be a small step but it will go along way to boosting the financial strength of newspapers and their ability to report on those in positions of power.

META: This article was written by Nom de Plume (LeChevalierMal-Fait) for the Telegraph separate to his canon character.

Court case launched at Government over Votes at 16

The Baron of Alton, JellyCow99, Shadow Chancellor, has launched a Supreme Court Case against the Minister for the Cabinet Office model-pjr over the Government’s voting age policy.

The case claims that the Government is breaking its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Equality Act, implying that the Government’s “Raise the age” policy is ageist.

The cited protocol under the ECHR states that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature,” which basically means that the United Kingdom is obliged to hold regular and free elections to its legislature and that ballots should be secret.

The Equality Act, which was passed in October 2010, outlaws discrimination, harassment or victimisation, and as users of private and public services based on age. However, it makes no direct reference to voter enfranchisement (after all, before 2016, the voting age was 18).

The logic behind the case seems to be that stopping under 18s from voting is discriminatory towards minors and would fall under age discrimination from the government. Following on from such logic, it can be assumed that the current voting age of 16 years old would also be deemed illegal under the current law, or any “minimum voting age”.

Lord Alton launched the case yesterday.

Lord Alton said he believed that the government “[has not worked] within the confines our own law and the law it follows internationally” and that he is “following the correct procedure to determine whether or not [the Representation of the People Bill] is in breach of either the ECHR or the Equality Act 2010”.

Responding to a question asked by The Telegraph about whether he would favour universal suffrage (in that persons of all ages would be allowed to vote) he said “No, and that is not the basis of the court case. The case is based solely around preventing illegal disenfranchisement.” This seems to go against the earlier logic, as not calling for universal enfranchisement would seem to go against the idea that having a voting age, be it at 18 or 16, is age discrimination, or infringing on human rights.

If this case were to win, it could set a dangerous precedent surrounding what is considered age discrimination, after all, there are many other things that have age limits, such as the drinking age (18), the legal driving age (17), films (12, 15, 18). Minors are also protected in many aspects. Under 13s can’t use sites like Facebook and Twitter or get a part-time job. If the court were to rule in favour of Lord Alton, this may set a precedent that the above could be ruled as age discrimination by the court.

All in all, it would seem that this is another bump in the Opposition’s backlash against so-called “Gregfest”, the Government’s wide-reaching reforms, all introduced by ggeogg, the Earl of Earl’s Court, and former Conservative member for Lincolnshire, which culminated in a series of protests against the lowering of the voting age in Manchester and London on the 2nd of May.

The Earl’s bill seeks to raise the age required to vote from 16 after it was lowered by the Liberal Democrats in 2016, which would make it the first country in the world to raise, rather than lower its voting age. The bill, now in the Lords, nevertheless passed the Commons by 3 votes, just 3 days after the National Day of Protest took place, making it

For now, it remains to be seen what will be the outcome of this case and the government’s response to it.

Temple talks party politics and devolved elections

Former Sussex MP, I speak with the Baron of Carrickfergus, LPUK member and Telegraph columnist.

On a brisk Wednesday Lunchtime, I flew out to Northern Ireland to visit ex-DUP leader turned Libertarian, Henry J. Temple. We met in a small café in Belfast, where he ordered a latte.

First, I asked him about his frequent political turn coating. The former MP for Sussex was originally a member of the NUP, where he was leader of the DUP for a period of time, then moved to the Ulster Unionist Party, which is a branch of the Conservatives. After being suspended from there, he moved on to the Libertarian, achieving a shock win in last year’s Sussex by election. Recently, however, he left the LPUK to work once again in his beloved Northern Ireland, however that was short-lived, as he was let back into his old party by Friedmanite, seemingly with few questions asked.

Temple justifies this turn coating, which may deter some voters from choosing him in future elections, should the peer decide to run for democratic office once again, by saying “I’m something of an outspoken member of the political landscape” – perhaps a politician’s way of recognising his own controversiality – but that he is “proud” of not “doing what is popular”, but “doing what one thinks is right.”

He originally joined the former Nationalist Party because of their strong policies that he thought would “help the nation” but moved to the Conservatives because of their inability to oust homophobia within the party. However, Temple is known for being quite a demonstrative politician, and the Tories disliked his links to the Orange Order, marching in it while in the UUP.

His move to the LPUK was spurred because he “agreed with their economic approach” and the party’s less restrictive nature allowed him to “make [his] voice heard.” His recent move to the Loyalist League was caused by his wanting to “focus on Northern Ireland”, however he found that the true focus was in fact on the Lords, so he quickly returned to the “move active” and more enjoyable LPUK (not the first Loyalist to make such a move).

The move may surprise some however, the former NUP and the Libertarian Party are not known for being that aligned. The LPUK’s libertarian free market stance is quite in opposition to the NUP’s view, which might be called “nanny-statist” by the Deputy Prime Minister. Temple describes himself as a conservative and a libertarian, despite recognising that the views are quite incompatible in areas. He said that he thought “of the individual should be advanced as often as is possible. However – the Government does have a role in the enforcement of the rule of just law, and to ensuring that those born into situations in which they are disadvantaged, receive the equality of opportunity to which I think they are entitled.”

Nevertheless, he admitted he felt the LPUK was the best party for his views, begging the question of the motive for the move in the first place. This is further questioned as he said they “support and care about Northern Ireland.” Although he thinks “they lacked the resources and membership to take on the UUP,” which is dubious considering the minor partner in the Government has both a larger base and more resources to fight an election than the Loyalists.

Temple, who has long been active in Ulster politics, said he is “supporting the LPUK across all of the devolved nations”, explaining that he thought the aim for the Northern Irish wing of the party, which has so far failed to make much gain in the province, is to take on Northern Ireland’s major party, the UUP, owned by the Conservatives, and whose former leader is now the Prime Minister, despite the close bond between the LPUK and UUP on a national level, because the UUP has become “complacent”, possibly evidenced by the governing party’s low turnout.

Temple has said he is on the list of candidates in the devolved elections, which are to take place next month. In all he said he plans to “stay in the Lords” and doesn’t care if he’s “unpopular”, as long as all sides of the House are held to account.

You can read the full interview here, including questions about religion, democracy and political extremism.

HJT Interview

Telegraph: Ok. So, Henry, you have had quite a turbulent political history. Originally a member of the NUP, you became a controversial member of the UUP and then a Libertarian, during which time you made your political chef d’œuvre at Sussex some would say. Then recently you left the LPUK to lead the DUP, and now you’ve returned to the LPUK again. Why all the turn coating?

HenryJohnTemple: It’s no secret that I’m something of an outspoken member of the political landscape, and that’s something I am proud of. For me politics is not about doing what is popular, it’s about doing what one thinks to be right. It’s what drives me, and what continues to drive me. When I joined the NUP they had strong policies that I believed would help the nation – but they happened to be a little to (sic) slow on ousting homophobic people within the party. I left for that reason. From the UUP I was suspended. They took objection to be marching with the Orange Order, something David Trimble, a winner of the Nobel Prize and stalwart UUP member before its current form, did also. So I went to the LPUK. Why? Because I agreed with their economic approach, and they gave me the room I needed to make my voice heard. I left the LPUK to focus on Northern Ireland within the DUP, however the focus of the league was on the upper house, which I was warned of before I joined, so my return to the LPUK was once born of a desire to return to a group that I greatly enjoyed being part of, and that was more active than the League.

Do you feel as though the LPUK don’t care about Northern Ireland?

No. I know they support and care about Northern Ireland deeply, they just lacked the resources and membership to take on the UUP for the Unionist Voteshare (sic) at assembly level.

So, would you consider it the LPUK’s goal in Northern Ireland to “take on” the UUP?

I would yes. I think the UUPs majority, which has not shifted much in the past few elections, has made them grow complacent. Would you consider the UUP to be as active as they should be?

I’d rather remain unbiased on the issue myself.

Moving on – the Loyalist League and the LPUK are very different parties. One stands for small-c social conservatism and traditionalism (and possibly what the Deputy Prime Minister would call ‘the Nanny State’) while the other stands for libertarianism. How would you describe your political stance?

I would describe myself as a conservative, and a Libertarian. But do he sure to publish that with a lower case ‘c’! I think the Government should be small, and liberty of the individual should be advanced as often as is possible. However – the Government does have a role in the enforcement of the rule of just law, and to ensuring that those born into situations in which they are disadvantaged, receive the equality of opportunity to which I think they are entitled.

So, you wouldn’t see any conflict between the views of conservatives and libertarians?

That’s a very broad question, so forgive me – I’ll give it a broad answer. Yes, there are conflicts between the views, because they’re different belief systems.

Do you think you’re in the best party for your views now, however?


So, recently you gained a working peerage as the Baron of Carrickfergus. Do you see a return to the Commons in your future or will you be remaining in the Upper House? Any plans in your beloved Northern Ireland, or one of the other devolved nations?

I greatly enjoy the Upper House, assisting in the passage of legislation, and posing questions on the less thought through topics is a passion of mine. At present, I’m supporting the LPUK across all of the devolved nations. (sic)

Are you planning a run in the devo elections?

The LPUK is yes, and I am on the list of candidates.

So, it’s no hidden secret that you are a religious man, probably politics’ current greatest proponent for the Church of England. How do you think your faith influences your politics, would you like to see the remarriage of Church and state?

I think Morality does yes, it’s up to the individual to chose (sic) where that morality stems from. For many the easy choice is the Church, so perhaps the church should be remarried to the state – however the easy choice is not always the correct one is it? I think we need to refund our morals at a deeper level than at present, and an understanding of faith can help that

So, if another Desecularisation Bill were to be introduced would you be in favour of it?

Could you clarify the specifics of what such a bill would propose?

repealing the secularistation act

https://www.reddit.com/r/MHOC/comments/9ombw2/b700_secularisation_repeal_bill_2018_second/ (e.g.)

I would support the repeal if it accommodated for other faiths.

Another thing – Over time you have also called for the Lords to have more authority than they do now. Do you not see this as undemocratic?

If one defines democracy as rule of the people and by the people, then the system in which we currently live is deeply flawed already. So yes, I would say that in a basic sense, it would be viewed as undemocratic. But, one of the attractions of Democracy is the protection from the rule of tyranny by majority. So in a system in which the majority are increasingly having a say at the detriment of the minority, a system that protects the rule of law and the minority within it, is surely a good thing?

Some people would go as far to call your brand of politics “extremist”, would you agree with them?

All politics are extreme from certain points of view, so for some people yes, I am extreme.

Do you see yourself as extreme compared to the political norm?


Finally, when the LPUK joined the Conservatives in the last government, you were a notable exception in Leafy’s last cabinet. Why do you think this is? Can you be trusted?

The Conservatives run a right ship, (sic) I don’t think that my vocal ways when it comes to things I disagree with go hand in hand with cabinet collective responsibility.

So, what’s next for HenryJohnTemple?

For me, I’m looking to stay in the Lords, and ultimately – to stay asking questions, of this Government, and all sides of the House – to matter how unpopular those questions may be.

Climate Change Secretary takes questions from the House

As part of a statement to the house by the Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change (ECC), he has also taken questions from MPs on the government’s Paris committments.

In a statement a few days ago, InfernoPlato, ex-prime minister and now ECC, outlined how the government has attempted to reach the UK’s committments to the Paris agreement, signed in 2015.

The Minister said that the government was planning a “Climate Change Bill”, which would inculde a Carbon Levy, something the Classical Liberals attempted to introduce at the start of the term, but was voted down by Government MPs.

The bill, he said, would aim to:

  • require the Secretary to detail how to government is implementing its 2015 commitments
  • close all coal power plants in 10 years (accelerated to 5 years)
  • invest in renewables and end fossil fuel subsidies
  • introduce a carbon levy

He also cited the government’s Agriculture Sustainability Strategy, worked on with the Environment Secretary (ex-Conservative antier, at the time) and the rise in the 2050 renewable energy target to 99%.

InfernoPlato has also come under fire from the opposition recently for failing to attend his Minister’s Questions last week, after the Prime Minister earlier committed that all members of cabinet will be required to answer more than half of the questions, or face losing their job. The Secretary responded to the questions that he missed in this statement too.

At the end of his statement, the minister announced his resignation, citing his inability to attend MQs due to personal reasons.

Earlier this week, the Government replaced InfernoPlato with another former Prime Minister, the recently retired Leafy_Emerald.

DF44, former Prime Minister, who now leads the Climate Rebellion faction of the Green Left Movement, responded to a question from The Daily Telegraph, saying

I can outright confirm that InfernoPlato contacted me on the matter of the Climate Change Bill – a point on which I have to imagine the recent fracking motion from the oppositon might have benefitted from! Whilst I still don’t think that the bill goes far enough in many areas, it was a proper step in the right direction, rather than a token shuffle that we have often seen be promptly walked back with interest. When it comes around it is likely that I will vote for it, but I am conscious that it is not a solution, and I will continue to ensure that the Government is held to account on climate change, without using a fig leaf as a shield.

It is highly unfortunate, and I cannot quite believe I am saying this after the period I was Prime Minister in, that InfernoPlato is resigning. The Government has failed one of their harder working ministers by failing to seek a substitute to a Minister’s Questions. I’m aware that I cannot complain too highly – I was also unable to attend due to work co-ordinating climate action protests including upcoming School Strikes – but the Government I’m sure has plenty of Junior Ministers who could’ve stepped to the plate to provide accountability for the department at the time.

On the matter of Leafy as the new appointment, if what I have heard is accurate, is that I hardly view his Government as one with a green legacy. If he wishes to match his predecessor, then he has a heck of a challenge, likely starting with him returning to the debating chamber and making a proper comment to the house for the first time since the General Election. Until we start seeing that, I fear the Government has replaced the active with the inactive, all in the name of improving activity.


HKNorman, the Shadow Climate Change Secretary to whose questions InfernoPlato didn’t respond during MQs, said the following:

I’m glad he has resigned as the Secretary of State, because he has a pretty dismal record in the position. His statement, while informative, does not make up for his missing MQs, as I had a whole array of questions planned as follow ups to whatever answers he may have had, so there is a definite lack of accountability there, so it is right that he has resigned.

I think Leafy is an interesting choice for the role. It could bring a lot of new ideas to the role, but that said we can’t really call pin many hopes on him to make any real effort to fight climate change, as the Conservative record speaks for itself. Labour is proud to have joined the Greens and Climate Rebellion in advocating for a Green New Deal, which we have made the heart of our agenda for office.

HKNorman, Shadow ECC

First Minister responds to Social Democrat Manifesto

The First Minister of Scotland, Alajv3, has reponded to a question posed by a Telegraph reporter about the recent manifesto launch of the Scottish wing of the Independent Social Democrats.

The Leader of the Scottish Greens, whose party is currently the minority government of the country, said that though he recognised that the Independent Social Democrat Candidate, Saunders16, did well in the recent Oxfordshire and Berkshire by-election, where Saunders beat the incumbent ContrabannedtheMC, founder of the People’s Movement, who Al’s party endorsed to win, by nearly 2,000 votes, he didn’t think they have a stable enough voter base in Scotland at this time for the devolved elections.

In reaction to the manifesto, which was launched on Tuesday Evening, the First Minister was “disappointed” that the Social Democrats want to repeal the Scottish Government’s controversial ban on private healthcare, citing that his party receives a “raise in a poll” when they talk about them and predicts that that particular policy “may be a loss” for them.

Despite this, the hopeful next First Minister admitted that he saw them as a potential coalition partner, on his belief that his party will be unable to get a majority, even if they wanted to, in order to “keep the work of a progressive Scotland going”, noting that the First Minister himself is a (small s) social democrat.

However, although he sees the SSD as better than some parties (presumably his primary opponents, Duncs11 and the Classical Liberals), he seemed to be annoyed by the fact that the Welsh Finance Minister (Saunders16) should tell the First Minister of Scotland what to do, and criticised him on account of Saunders’ coming from England and Wales and immediately launching an offensive against the Greens.

In all, the Holyrood Elections do seem to have a viable new contender on the stage, that, although possibly not this time round, but surely in future years, could transform the Scottish Political Theatre, by providing a strong centre-ground between the hardline unionism of Duncs’ delegation and the hardline nationalism of the Green Party.

Scotland’s election is one to watch closely this June.

The full text of Alajv3’s statment can be found here:

I have seen the SSD manifesto and while the SSD did get quite a lot of voters in OxBerk I think that it might take a while for them to gain a stable voter base in Scotland, but I might be wrong on this. I think that our voters may be disappointed in seeing that the SSD wants to repeal our nationalisation, it’s one of our key policies we have been working with for a while and we have seen a raise in the polls when we talked about them so that might be a loss for the SSD. Other than that I think that they are potential coalition partners, while we don’t agree on everything I am 100% sure that the Scottish Greens won’t get a majority (even if we wanted) and that we need to work with other parties to keep the work with a progressive Scotland going. I am a Social Democrat myself and I welcome that the Welsh Finance Minister have changed their mind and joined the better ideology. And the last thing I want to say is that while I do think that they probably are better for Scotland than some parties, I don’t think that a Welsh finance minister should come and tell me, the Scottish First Minister what to do. In a couple of terms when they are an established Scottish Party, fine, go ahead. But now, coming from England and Wales without having been a part of the Scottish Politics over the last years? No.


Welsh Finance Ministers launches Scottish Election bid

The leader of the Independent Social Democrats, Saunders16, today launched the manifesto of the Scottish Social Democrats, his grouping’s new Scottish devolved branch.

In a statement made at half nine on Tuesday Evening, the leader of the new group introduced the new grouping to the public. He noted his party’s success in the recent Oxfordshire and Berkshire by-election, where his party narrowly won out against the incumbent ContrabannedtheMC, a founding member of the People’s Movement. He explained this meant “there is still an appetite for the centre-left values that are under threat by the coalition government”.

The leader launched an attack on the Scottish Government, calling out the Greens on being complacent in their role and taking “their power for granted”, and on Duncs11, the Scottish leader for the Classical Liberals, critisizing him for “enabling” the government.

The Front Page of the Manifesto

The manifesto, “More Unity, More Equality, More Success”, has been released in the run up to the Devolved Elections, which are due to take place on 13th June.

Economically speaking, the manifesto attacks the right-wing economics of the Classical Liberals and Conservatives, and supports a “fairer” and “simpler” income tax, with lower rates and wider tax brackets on all levels. The party wishes the replace council tax and non-domestic rates with a land value tax, which is something the Classical Liberal Party has passed through the Scottish Parliament.

The SSD aim to “stand up for scottish interests”, pushing for further devolution and “keeping the option open” for indyref2, citing Brexit and the Welfare Referedum as its main reasons for this nationalistic stance, but also recognises the “uncertainty and division” that a referendum would bring.

In public services, the SSD take a mixed view, both interested in free school meals and to stop the nationalisation of private hospitals. Saunders16 also wants Scotland to catch up with England in terms of the mental health reforms he introduced during the Liberal Government.

The party is seemingly committed to the enviornment, wishing to ban fracking in Scotland, to devolve a carbon tax so it can be at least £50 a tonne and to work across the Parliament to ensure Scotland meets environmental targets.

Finally, the SSD takes a liberal view in regards to social issues, attacking many recent government policies such as raising the voting age and the controversial Policing Bill, both introduced in a mass-submission of bills by ggeogg, Minister without Portfolio. The party opposes the existence of minimum sentences and favours rehabilitative methods over sentencing.

The Scottish Social Democrats will be running in June’s Scottish Elections

All in all, this is the sort of manifesto that was expected from the Social Democrats. It takes a centrist view on most matters, however struggles to entirely differentiate itself and make itself stand out, looking to become Scotland’s third way, as many parties have done before it.

Sir Duncs11, Leader of the Scottish delegation to Holyrood responded to a question from a Daily Telegraph reporter about the manifesto by saying:

I’m used to our economic policies being attacked. I disagree, but such is politics. What I will not be so polite about is the accusation of “enabling” the Greens in Government. My delegation have been a strong opposition throughout the term, holding them firmly to account. We’ve also passed numerous pieces of vital legislation, some of which as SSD policy, so their accusation we only talk about the union doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.



Meta: This article was not written by model-pjr, the MP.

Shadow Treasury Chief ponders Cabinet


NukeMaus, the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, reportedly asked this evening whether the TLC would be “doing actual cabinet meetings.” The Telegraph would like to ask him what the alternative would be? Would the Shadow Cabinet not meet and just wonder what the other Ministers were thinking? Would they all meet the Leader of the Opposition separaretly, as one would at a GP Surgery, and Cabinet discussions would occur in a sort of drawn-out political chinese whispers? Or would the Former Deputy Prime Minister prefer the Opposition to adopt a digital strategy of large teleconfrencing, perhaps one large Skype call?