The Chancellor has no answers [Op-Ed]

Labour's John McDonnell to quit front line politics after bruising election  result - LBC

Britain’s self appointed maverick has entered Number 11 Downing Street, bunking up with his Labour counterpart. His first speech outside Number 11 Downing Street said that he will be happy to answer any questions asked of him publicly. Despite this,  the Chancellor has no real answers as evidenced by his recent piece in the press. His commentary amounted to little more than a “No u” and he couldn’t even stick to the facts inventing his own versions of the facts on the political history of defence spending. When questioned on this, he told the British people they should cope with his lies. This government is going down a dangerous path already.

> We start with decrying “endless spending packages”. This would seem to imply unending spending is a problem that needs to be curbed.

> Then we see them decry that “at a time of escalating tensions and uncertainty they are proposing to slash funding to our armed forces.”

Left with no defence on the fiscal cost of their policies, the Chancellor resorts to attacking others because he has no answers himself. I can hardly say I’m surprised as he had no defence for his election manifesto which have seen the national debt soar.Defence spending is set to rise to 2.3% in 2024 and this rise in Defence spending is fully costed, its contained in a budget under which debt to GDP will fall. 

So unlike Mr Chompsky’s claims the Shadow Chancellor is not shaking any magic money tree, the Defence spending rises are fully costed and funded in the last budget which provides a fiscal framework for debt to GDP fall. 

>They never released a plan with their target saying why it was needed, what had changed from the 2.0% target, they just wanted to call the Tories soft on defence.

First of all this isn’t true as MGuido has pointed out. The 2.5% pledge was put forward by the Conservative minority government at the time. By the way they did publish a threat assessment and where this money would go at the time. I happened to not agree with it which is why my party put forward a smaller, more targeted defence package in our manifesto. Current Defence spending levels are justified by the recent procurement document published by the Phoenix government which clearly the Chancellor has not read. The Official Opposition  will work to protect this funding for the procurement and to ensure our military is not cut.

The Chancellor then attacks the LPUK for spending more than the NATO target on Defence. However he doesn’t mention he is spending nearly three times the aid target set by the United Nations. The government’s wants to spend your money in other countries, probably to advance their aims of world socialism and because they think they can match China’s Belt and Road initiative with a couple billion quid. I’ve never seen a set of people so clueless. Under this government your taxes will go up, and that money won’t be the spent in the UK economy to boost growth or your jobs, it will be going abroad so we can mythical soft power. Let us be under no illusion, you will be poorer with this clueless Chancellor. 

It’s interesting that large recipients of US foreign aid such as Egypt and Pakistan actually voted against US policy interests at the UN whilst their votes were more closely correlated with that of Cuba who doesn’t receive any US aid at all. 

I will also note here the increase in defence spending in the last budget is 0.3% of GDP whereas the coalition agreement contains international development spending at 2% a GDP, a rise of 1.3% of GDP. This is uncosted spending and the government hasn’t the slightest clue how it will pay for their increases in the structural deficit. If they did, I’m sure we’d have heard it now instead of the deflection from the Chancellor.

> Considering what LPUK has considered to be over regulation in the past, from basic housing standards

The Chancellor doesn’t even have a basic grasp of what housing standards are, his rants about toilets were thoroughly debunked by anyone who had actually read the regulations regarding toilets. The regulations he speaks of were regulations that were never affected by LPUK legislation. We shouldn’t be listening to him. The Blurple government helped to pave the way for the abolition of the green belt and to secure planning reform to get house prices down. However, don’t expect the left to be happy for you, they despise home ownership and independence from the state. 

> to saying cigarettes cause cancer, one has to wonder what they mean here. 

Once again no understanding of the policy even after it was explained a surgeon general warning would remain. You can begin to see this press piece was together hastily with no regard for facts or the truth in a weak attack on the newly-promoted Shadow Chancellor. 

We can then get some vague nonsense resorting “You mad bro” when it comes to the budget process. It seems this will be the government’s approach to any and all criticism going forward. It appears he has a short memory when solidarity piled the attacks on the previous budget and the Phoenix government.

It was also amusing to see the Chancellor complaining about the coalition agreement and his manifesto being attacked. It seems like the guy is quaking in his boots, now that he has to actually deliver instead of shout from the sidelines.

It must be a shock horror to the Chancellor as a political party attacks uncosted funding and economic policies it was elected to oppose and champions the ones in its manifesto. It would be convenient for the Chancellor if the opposition stopped holding him and his fiscal bomb to account but be rest assured we will be here to scrutinise and add the sums up for the Chancellor if he will not do so for himself. 

This article written by  the Right Honourable Sir /u/Friedmanite19 OM KCMG KBE CT LVO PC MP, The Leader of Her Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition

An opinion piece – The Midwife

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is callthemidwife.jpg
The High Middle Ages, beginning after 1000AD would be the birthplace of what we might recognise most vividly as the Aristocracy. This article aims to critique that birth, expound the potential parallel to our contemporary political challenge and to offer some balanced and respectful conclusions on the road map of our nation. On that note it endeavours not to restrain from an honest critique of the failures of the historical and contemporary aristocracy, nor is it hands off in expressing a critical assessment of our new government’s position, emphasising the real risks of birthing and nurturing an institution through infancy that shares common traits and values to that established institution in our society.

Let’s begin with the infancy of the High Medieval Aristocracy.

Initially an Anglo-Saxon Institution, and expanded across our land after the Kingdom of Wessex’s unification of one Kingdom – England, shires were governed by an Ealdorman. These shires by 1014 had been administratively organised into Earldoms, inherited by the appointed Earl or Sheriff. On the arrival of the Normans to our shores, this continued under William the Conqueror, and it was only on the ascension of Edward III that his sons were appointed Dukes. Kings would establish the honours of Marquesses and Viscounts to further establish differentiation of noble rank above Earl.

Behind the grandeur and ceremony that we’ve become accustomed too, as an institution this aristocracy was not born out of aspiration for a flourishing economic, social and cultural state, even with the foundations of that unified Kingdom. Instead, and with honest humility it should be recognised, that it was born from the advancement of self interest. Evidenced in how it demonstrated its rule in its infancy. The stealing and seizing of land under a pretence of piety, justice and efficiency was all too common in that nobility. No one, not even the religious monastics were spared the extortion as lavish wealth was accumulated, only to be employed for private gain. All of which was accomplished with a great degree of success under these claims; that it was morally right, that it was under crown authority, that it would provide economic sustainability and not exhaustively, that it would establish justice for all within the Kingdom.

Whatever your conclusions about the aristocracy – past, present or future – what transpired in reality was the establishment of powerful dynasties that would be wealthy beyond comprehension, powerful politically in society, and as was inevitable with such nurturing in its infancy, corrupt beyond belief. Nobles flourished with stark divisions in the standards of living to the majority in medieval society. The birth of the aristocracy was a painful ordeal, and it’s honest to confess that the medieval nobility could often be described as far from noble.

For the sake of balance and honesty there is much fault to be found with the aristocracy – even today. It’s worth noting that the influence and impact of those dynasties and those early shires under an Earldom can still be felt today. The use of leasehold sales for the homes built upon their hereditary land is a perfect example of self interest. Prior to reforms of the hereditary peerages in 1999, the number of hereditary Lords who failed to contribute as part of their constitutional duty to the House of Lords was scandalous. It should be reflected that in its infancy these characteristics were exemplified, and those characteristics remain. It would be foolish to defend the aristocracy as without fault, nor without the need for greater reform. It should be clear by now that this is not a defense of the institution.

The political influence of the Aristocracy, and the further development of the role of the institution is outside the scope of our examination, but those early foundations are important to view how the medieval earldoms, with particular emphasis on their land management, were established.

One sweeping change for the Aristocracy would come at the beginning of the 20th century. Under the weight of economic and social changes, those shires, now referred to as estates, hosting grand manor houses rather than a motte and bailey would in the aftermath of the Great War feel the first pinches of a changing world and a new phenomenon. Those unwilling to adapt and change to a new world and new technology found themselves collapsing. The presence of these estates today, and the continued presence of hereditary peers in the Lords even after 1999 make for a testimony to their survivability.

Endorsed and facilitated by the Left in the aftermath of both wars, inheritance taxes would be a bitter blow to these institutions, and the agricultural practices of a nation would change. These changes would include a radical change – farm owners would now be handling the responsibility for land they would now own and the techniques they would employ. The impact of that decision has been felt across the last century, and as agriculture has grown and adapted we’ve witnessed a shift from centralised large farms with much aristocratic oversight to an enterprising model, fueled by experience and the privatisation.

That change, and we must give credit where it is due, was in significant part because of a liberal boldness at the end of the Great War. It would appear however that the Left has changed its thinking, and set out to reapproach agricultural policy with radical ideas. It is not misplaced to be searching to better serve a struggling industry, but it is curious as to where we have seemingly found ourselves. Drawn to unexpected sources for the new inspiration. Large and influential farms, a centralised workforce, and the direction of local officials from the Department of Agriculture – nationalisation of the entire agricultural industry. All of this looks familiar. If you pull on this umbilical cord, following it through history, you might well find yourself in the High Middle Ages.

The Left have yet to announce the ‘good news’ of a pregnancy, but they’ve conceived the beginnings of a new aristocracy.

The lessons of Eastern Europe during the Great War with the rise of the Bolsheviks and nationalisation under trade unions was an experiment framed as morally right, economically sensible and bold steps towards true justice for all. It was implemented by seizing, stealing, and plundering. What would follow were deeply rooted problems within soviet society, far from the utopia promised. The wealth, power and double standards between those who rule and those who labour remained deeply entrenched. What materialised was something oppressive and dark, but be at no mistake, it was also the birth of an aristocracy in everything but name.

The Rose Government have set out their trajectory, promising agricultural change that will reforge a fairer and more prosperous society.

They may not arrive in the delivery room adorned with a wig, red robes of state or an honorary title gifted from the crown, but this chapter parallels history already well worn in the Middle Ages.

Call the Midwife!

To great surprise, the Left’s new aristocracy is potentially well into its first trimester.

This article was written by flatartifact, a new member of the LPUK

The fiscal bomb that keeps on giving – opinion

Dominic Sandbrook: How John McDonnell threatens Britain | Daily Mail Online

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”

Far-left deal reached as parties scramble for number 10

Written by Harry  Johnson and Tres Commas

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

The breakdown of cabinet can be found here: 

Prime Ministermotelblinds
Deputy Prime MinisterYoumaton
First Secretary of Stateohprkl
Minister for the Cabinet Office, Paymaster GeneralSolidarity
Secretary of State for EqualitiesLabour
Chancellor of the ExchequerSolidarity
Chief Secretary to the Treasury (attending Cabinet)Labour
Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentLabour
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth AffairsSolidarity
Assistant Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (attending cabinet)Labour
Secretary of State for International TradeLabour
Minister of State for European Affairs (attending cabinet)Labour
Secretary of State for International DevelopmentSolidarity
Secretary of State for DefenceSolidarity
Minister of State for Cybersecurity (attending cabinet)Labour
Secretary of State for Business and Economic DevelopmentSolidarity
Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for JusticeLabour
Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media, and SportLabour
Secretary of State for Housing, Communities, and Local GovernmentSolidarity
Minister of State for the Northern Powerhouse (attending cabinet)Solidarity
Secretary of State for the Environment, Food, and Rural AffairsSolidarity
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate ChangeSolidarity
Secretary of State for Workers and Trade UnionsSolidarity
Secretary of State for EducationLabour
Secretary of State for TransportSolidarity
Secretary of State for Health and Social CareSolidarity
Secretary of State for ScotlandSolidarity
Secretary of State for WalesArchism_
Secretary of State for Northern IrelandLabour
Lord President of the Council, Leader of the House of CommonsSolidarity
Lord Privy Seal, Leader of the House of LordsLabour
Chief Whip (Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)Solidarity
Lords Chief Whip (Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms)Labour
Attorney General for EnglandSolidarity
Solicitor General for EnglandLabour
Chancellor of the Duchy of LancasterLabour
Chief MouserBubbles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Government of Disunity – Tory Labour and PWP coalition leaked

Image result for number ten downing street

Written By Harry Johnson and Tres Commas

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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.

A New Government for a New Era; The Libertarians

There can be no denying that this election has been dominated thus far by two parties; not the convention ‘Labour’ vs ‘Conservative’ debate, but instead a slugging match between the Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom, and the left-wing Solidarity Party. Both of them promise startlingly different approaches to the future of this country, and role of the Government in it, and this article I will lay out to Telegraph Readers, why I think the Libertarians are the way to go.

Without a doubt the Libertarians have a proud record of delivering a strong tax package to the people of the United Kingdom, not only through their consistent approach to increasing the tax free allowance, but also through their direct tackling of ‘sin taxes’, alongside handing down a £1,000.00 reduction in National Insurance Contributions in the most resent budget. Perhaps harking back to the words of the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, before the move to the present electoral system, David Cameron, who laid out his views on taxation exceptionally clearly, the Libertarians have not deviated from their line that the money people earn, is theirs, not the Governments.

Indeed, this is a persistent line throughout this new manifesto, which opens on a commitment to ‘fiscal discipline’, a robust line to take as the country already holds one of the most competitive tax regimes in Europe. In their agenda for Government, the Libertarians outline a desire to move to a simpler tax system with a reduced number of bands, something that is almost certain to attract the interests of businessmen, and workers, up and down the country.

I believe that if people have worked hard and earned their own money, they should be able to spend it how they like. It’s your money, not the Government’s.

Former PM, David Cameron

Of perhaps greater importance is the Libertarians plan to slice VAT down to 15% – citing a desire to see a boost to economic growth and consumer spending. With cheaper shopping bills under this new policy, the VAT should win many friends across the lower and middle earners of the country, who – from their campaign messaging – appears to be their target voter base. Partner this with an ambitious scaling back of the current rates of alcohol and tobacco duties, which the party brands as ‘regressive’, and they have a tantalizing array of tax reductions on offer.

Reforms to Public Spending

Perhaps in a more radical shift, the Libertarians have also outlined their plans to put a control on public expenditure, harkening back to the Reagan-Thatcher style approach to viewing Government programs with some degree of skepticism. Seeking to lower the debt-to-gdp ratio in each budget, the Libertarians clearly strive for a small, concentrated state, that can intervene where necessary in the lives of its people.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!

Ronald Reagan

Promising to privatize the BBC, in an increasingly more competitive online space for media, Friedmanite19 commits to a scaling back of wasteful Government spending across the board, with a sound economic approach that would bring billions of wasteful spending back under control.

One of the programs facing the axe this time around is the Childcare policy that the Tories bought in. A middle class perk, that effectively drove the cost up on all families in the country, so they could support middle class families who did not ask for the support in the first place, would bring spending down to ‘Cameron Era Levels’, something set to get the heart racing for many.

All in the Libertarians promise a sleek state, with a low tax burden across the board, promising hundreds in tax cuts on the lowest earners, whilst unshackling the British economy in the process.

For businessmen, workers, homeowners and pensioners – the libertarian manifesto is one to get behind.

A Plan for the Environment

But it is not just on economic matters that the Libertarian Party have a strong platform to go on. Seeing nuclear power as the path to a a sustainable energy sector, the party says it will partner with the private sector to attract investment, as we transition into a green economy.

Environment Spokesperson, Womble commented saying “We have always had a bold approach to conserving the natural world, which, when partnered with the plans we have for rewilding (which we are seeing in Wales at the moment) ensure that we leave a greener and more pleasant land for the next generation.”

Whilst the election rages on, the LPUK continue to campaign on their tested lines, presenting a fully costed plan for the future of this country, that we would be wise to back.

The Marquess of Cearnarfon is a Libertarian Peer and Candidate in the General Election. The views here are his and his alone.

National Polling Reveals Strong LPUK as Labour and Lib Dems Lose Ground

This week Telegraph has received results from our national polling conducted in 6 constituencies across the country by a joint Telegraph/YouGov team. Overall the results paint a picture of a strong standing LPUK that leads in key seats followed by a Consertative Party who though weakened maintain a good position in several seats. Labour however appears key with them running the risk of losing seats and eroding support as traditionally more left-leaning voters turn to the rising Solidarity which has recently outplaced as the third-largest party in national polling. Labour will need key Liberal Democrat and Solidarity endorsements to remain competitive and stand a shot at remaining competitive in the seats they currently hold. 


The results for Surrey are not surprising with the long-time LPUK MP for Surrey, cthulhuiscool2 commanding a nearly unbeatable lead polling at 38.70%, with an edge of 22 points over the next highest competitor. The next highest party are the Tories polling at 16% followers by Solidarity at 13.97% and Labour in only 12%. As the election approaches it can be safely said that Surrey will remain Purple for the foreseeable future. 


Merseyside was one of the tightest and continuously fought seats in teh last election and it seeks to continue that tradition. Last time former Labour leader Akko fought off a very aggressive LPUK campaign for the seat, winning the election on a razor margin. However, now with Akko having left Labour for Solidarity, the seat stands to flip. The LPUK have recently doubled their efforts to gain support in the region with them hosting their party conference in Liverpool. Perhaps thanks to that effort and their gain in national polling now the LPUK sit at 31% to Labour’s 28%. If the LPUK manages to secure a Tory endorsement who currently in Merseyside it seems it will be dire for Labour indeed. Solidarity and the Liberal Democrats poll at 9.59% and 6.78% respectively, meaning even if Labour manages to secure both of these endorsements it will still be a tough fight. Of course, such endorsements are not guaranteed by any means with the possibility of a challenge from Solidarity’s seeking to retake their former seat. 

Birmingham, Solihull, and Coventry

This seat currently held by the Liberal Democrats looks like it might run away from the grasp. The LPUK are polling at 29%, with Labour and Lib Dems polling behind equally at 17%. No doubt the Liberal Democrats’ performance here has been hurt by their fall nationally with the party dropping in the single digits. In order to retain this seat, the Liberal Democrats will need at least a Labour endorsement to fight off the LPUK, and potentially backing from Soldarty as well if the LPUK secure a Tory endorsement. Also making this seat interesting the strong polling from Coalition at 10%, whatever party they choose to endorse here might end up with the final edge on election day. 

North Yorkshire

One of the tighter races this election cycle as the Conservative incumbent Shadow Chancellor /u/ToastinRussian finds themselves within touching distances of the Libertarian Party, with both parties polling at 27.78 and 26.50 percent respectively. Overall the Telegraph believes that the outcome of this race will be determined by third-party endorsement as none of the left of center parties has a shot at winning this one if this round of polls is to be believed.

Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

Currently, a LibDem seat however come election day that is highly likely to change, with the LPUK polling at a commanding lead of over 29% putting them 6 points ahead of the Conservative Party, while the Liberal Democrats find themselves in fourth place behind Solidarity. It could be a three-way horse race with the LPUK, Tories, and Liberal Democrats running. If the LibDems secure key endorsements from Labour and other smaller parties they may be able to hold on but if the race gets more complicated and these parties decide to run instead, the LibDems might stand no chance in Bedfordshire. The Liberals could be in real trouble should this constituency be a sign of things to come.

Upper Severn 

Up last is the only truly safe Conservative constituency in this round-up with the Conservative Party holding a comfortable 7 point lead over their Libertarian competitors rank 2nd at 19.5%. Of note is the Solidarity party in third place at 13%. This seat again might be a competitive three-way race if Solidarity or one of the other parties manage to secure endorsements from each other. However, in the case that no party secures endorsements or one of them goes to either the Tories or Libertarians, it looks to be an open and shut case. 

Overall the picture across the country seems to the portrait of a gaining LPUK and steady Tory who have settled in a secure second place. The LPUK led in 4 of the seats we polled with the Tories leading in the other two places. This also means a grim situation for Labour has LPUK make inroads into traditionally ground Labour seats while they continue to lose more left-leaning supporters to Solidarity. Labour will need key endorsements from the Liberal Democrats and Solidarity to remain in contention for key swing races. Solidarity also stands in a strong position to give endorsements and secure their own races with the potential to capture many list seats. The Liberal Democrats meanwhile stand in a similar position to Labour but a weaker one with their collapsing public support and recent scandals which have hurt their reputation as the party that can be trusted. 

Link to full results

In defence of the budget deal – a positive vision for our economy

What is the red Budget Box, is Gladstone's 1860 leather briefcase still  used and what is in the Chancellor's despatch box?

Written by Harry Johnson for the Telegraph 

If you read any of the most recent  Solidarity or SATUP press on the recent budget deal between the LPUK and the government you’d think that the worst has to come to the worst and that just like Alastair Darling in 2009  the  Labour government is going to “cut deeper than Thatcher”. Yet the reality requires one to look no further than the joint statement issued by /u/Friedmanite19  and the Chancellor /u/NGspy.

To quote the Chancellor themselves “These benefits shall ensure that the government has enough to fund and build on the programs that the government has offered, including Plant!, ensuring the distribution of laptops to our school kids, more amounts in block grants for Wales and Northern Ireland, and a general increase in defense spending by 1.1 billion pounds annually.” Clearly then anyone calling this budget “austere” is either lying or does not understand what austerity policies actually are. This is especially true in the case of Wales, which thanks to the F4 deal have been left in a state of austerity.

That is not to mention the host of progressive tax cuts aimed at our SMEs and the working people of this country. National insurance has for too long remained an unfair burden on the Britons who found themselves hit by a 12% stealth tax despite the lowest tax rates under our deal this will no longer be the case as the NIC threshold is to be matched with the personal allowance so that the tax code remains both progressive and transparent.  Sin taxes are another positive of our deal. Under the previous Conservative budget, we would have had some of the highest rates in Europe, merely to punish people for what they considered to be a wrong choice.  These policies, unlike the series of tax hikes proposed by hidden Solidarity, ushered in by their preferred economic theory will put hundreds of pounds back into the pockets of working families.

The same can also be said about our small and medium enterprises, which will be sure to benefit from a 2.5% reduction in their tax bill. x. Over half the costs of the corporation tax are borne by the workers themselves therefore it is only fair for us to push for its reduction. The Chancellor’s flagship dividend imputation policy will be yet another boon to our entrepreneurs and workers as the burden of double taxation will be lifted from them.

We were told this parliament would get nothing done after the Blurple government collapsed however our great budget deal gets parliament working and working for you. Regressive sin taxes down, ordinary families keeping more of what they earn by slashing NIC’s, a fairer block grant system. This budget delivers for the lowest paid and low-income households and makes sound economic sense. Whilst others have been sniping at the sidelines, the government and Libertarians have been working hard to finalize the budget tables and draft a budget that puts money into the pockets of working families. 

 The only losers from this budget deal are solidarity and their hard-left ideology. They no doubt want this government to get nothing done so they could stoke up resentment among the electorate in a vain attempt to try to boost their seat share. Their whole ideology revolves around sowing discontent and polarising the electorate after all.

 The Chancellor has no doubt taken the right decision to get through his flagship policies of dividend imputation and SME cuts by working across the aisle with the British people being the winners.