“The real reason we need the Queen (and the real reason the left wants her gone).”

I hear many tiresome arguments about the rights and wrongs of maintaining a traditional monarchy. Most of them come from republicans and the minor radicals, who happen to be odiously left wing, but some come from my fellow royalists. We like to talk about how the monarchy gives us a national identity and culture, about how the monarchy encourages tourism to our wonderful capital and of course we like to bring up our commonwealth of nations. These points are all very true and we will do well to remember them. That being said, the real reason the monarchy is so important is because it separates politics from the head of state, and the monarch represents the people instead of a political party.

The purpose of the monarch in our current system, is to be a politically impartial head of state. Prime ministers are busy running the country, we shouldn’t waste their time with lame photo shoots (I suppose they choose to do this regardless), ceremonies, state visits and hosting events. Who wants a politician to honour our soldiers anyway? It should be someone who actually represents the people and embodies the nation, not someone who has temporarily won over public opinion. Politics tends to divide us, while nationhood and identity unites us all; regardless of race, gender and background.

Without a monarch we would likely elect a president instead of dumping the duties on a Prime Minister. While I am confident that the British people would elect a fantastic Conservative and Unionist president, having a president comes with great costs. Not only does it punish the public purse more than a humble monarch does, but the system is flipped on its head. In a democracy the politicians are meant to bow to the people, work for the people and fear the power of the demos if they fail in their duties. With a presidency it is the other way around.

Just look at Trump and Macron, they are worshiped, gifted palaces, have eye-watering wages, tax exemptions and the military are solely loyal to them; a party politician instead of the nation. No wonder the pair are rather unpleasant and arrogant people, certainly no wonder why an American president can only serve two terms. They know that the pedestal, the worship, the military parades in their name, all gets to the head of a politician, inflating their arrogance to breaking point. A two-term limit is the constitutional equivalent of price caps. If prices are soaring, then something in the economic system is wrong and the root cause must be fixed. In our example, the root cause is having a greedy politician as head of state, not a powerless monarch.

I suspect while hearing royalist arguments about tradition, culture and heritage, many of the left become republicans; they’ve long had a distaste for patriotism after all. Only the real radical ideologues want rid of the monarchy to obtain the position themselves and to remove a safeguard on freedom. That’s the real reason radical republicans want Her Majesty gone, not anything out of principle but for ideological and personal gain. I don’t see Labour and the minor radicals that way. They are too soft and too misinformed, like a newly adopted and very tired kitten. I’ve heard the DRF speak in parliament, they seem to lack the fire, the ideas and the intention to have more sinister motives. Often the parties with the most disturbing names are really just trying to compensate for a lack of the aforementioned mentioned attributes.

Of course, I deeply care about tradition, culture and national heritage, but at its heart the debate is one of constitutional systems. Do we have a powerless and humble monarch, embodying the nation and her people as head of state; or do we have an arrogant, party political politician, using their position for politics, while their head bloats from the worship and their sight blurs from the height of the pedestal? For me the answer is simple, if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.

God save the Queen.

CONFIRMED: Labour links arms with DRF and TPM in election pact.

The Telegraph has obtained new leaks from senior Labour sources. They confirm earlier speculation by /u/BrexitGlory in an opinion piece penned to this paper, that Labour would look to ally with infamous republicans.

The Labour leader addressed their candidates, informing them that endorsement deals had been struck with the DRF and TPM.

The Labour whip, /u/SmashBrosGuys2933 revealed to Labour candidates that he was endorsed by the DRF in Lincolnshire.

These revelations come at no surprise to most, who had already assumed Labour would side with other radical leftists. The Telegraph could not find any evidence of an official coalition deal between the parties, but as Labour looks lonely on the left, they don’t have many allies to turn to for coalition.

Internal conflict

There were further whisperings of widespread discontent within the party, including within the leadership. According to a high-ranking Labour member, an MP was heard voicing concerns over DRF leader /u/ZanyDraco; stating that the DRF leader hates them. Others questioned the leadership as to why the party was aligning with the DRF. Allegedly, one MP confronted the Labour leader in a row, claiming that even some of the leadership disagreed with the move.

The Telegraph spoke to members and leadership, asking about these rumours. All claims were denied. Members and leadership expressed having a “good working relationship” with the DRF and declined to comment on election strategy.

Official comment from Sam

When asked for an official comment on the leak, Sam responded:

Tensions with voters over Royals

Republicanism is trademark policy of both the DRF and TPM. How this squares with Labour voters in the election cannot be predicted exactly, it is likely to cause concerns with their more patriotic voter however. Labour have had secret republicans in their ranks for some time, but now they have openly endorsed a party set to take a wrecking ball to our constitution.

/u/BrexitGlory is a political pundit and journalist, active in Westminster and specialising in internal Labour party politics.

He is also a Classical Liberal Conservative MP.

“The Democratic Reformist Front is only a front for a republican Labour Party”

/u/ZanyDraco (centre) is the current leader of the Democratic Reformist Front.

/u/cthulhuiscool2 is a former Home Secretary, current Leader of the House of Commons and long serving parliamentarian representing Surrey.

The Democratic Reformist Front is arguably the breakout party of the 12th term and made headlines this week with the merger of Plaid Cymru and the Irish Parliamentary Party.

In an Announcement of Formation published on the 15th of June, Party Leader Mr Draco declared his party as “dedicated to the institution of a republic”, inviting support “[regardless] if you’re a libertarian, a social democrat, or anything in between.”

More recently the party’s pint-sized manifesto, if we may call it a manifesto, claimed the Democratic Reformists were “a movement that works for everyone”, welcoming of “almost every ideological background.”

Yet on Tuesday former Democratic Reformist Member of Parliament ThePootisPower, having defected to the Labour Party, described “almost the entirety” of his former party as “left wing” sharing “Labour’s broadchurch left wing ideas.”

Further to this, on Tuesday The Telegraph broke the news of the Labour Party entering into an electoral pact with the DRF. It is unknown why the Democratic Reformist Front has chosen to endorse the Labour Party, given that the previous Labour manifesto made no mention of monarchy abolition or House of Lords reform. It is equally unknown why the Labour Party, ostensibly a party of unionism, has endorsed the party of rapid nationalism intent on breaking the United Kingdom to pieces and uprooting our constitution. I will speculate, there is far more in common between the two parties than either would care to admit. That, or the electoral pact is motivated by the blind pursuit of power and little more.

…a vapid collection of political unknowns, rejects and has-beens with the common goal of furthering their own disgraceful political careers.

Fundamentally the problem with the DRF is not that it is left wing, for left wing political thought is entirely valid. The problem is that it refuses to admit to being left wing. They are too afraid to be honest to those who vote for them. Yet their intentions are perhaps more sinister, using the lie of political neutrality to misdirect voters, they risk undermining our democracy. They are a vapid collection of political unknowns, rejects and has-beens with the common goal of furthering their own disgraceful political careers, not a credible party to lead the republican cause. I challenge them to present a full manifesto and have the confidence to stand on their own platform.

The Democratic Reformists are not above ideology, the Labour Party is their ideology.

Between the start of the term and Monday, where a majority of the parliamentary Labour Party and the Democratic Reformist Front voted Aye, No or Abstain in the House of Commons; 81% of the time they voted the same. The Democratic Reformists are not above ideology, the Labour Party is their ideology. The Democratic Reformist Front is little more than a republican Labour Party, if only they would admit this hard truth.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect that of The Telegraph or its employees.

“We need to look at the Heavens for our next National Defence Review”

Article written by /u/Markthemonkey888.

Markthemonkey888 is currently a working peer in the House of Lords, with an expertise in defence and environmental policies.

Space, the final frontier.

The second decade of this century has just come to a close, mankind are ever closer to conquering the heavens. With the advancement in spaceflight technology and independent private space companies such as SpaceX, we as a species, are on the verge of returning to the moon, and going beyond to colonize mars. We are on the verge of technologies which will allow mankind to explore our solar system, and to boldly go where no man has gone before. 

But with new opportunities, comes new threats. For the United Kingdom, we have lagged behind in defence space technologies compared to most other major countries. Ever since the infamous ZIRCON satellite, we have largely ignored this field, which is becoming ever more important. 

By conservative estimates, we are behind most nations in military satellite and anti-satellite technology by 5-10 years, and 15 years behind the likes of US and China when it comes to outer space technology. It is of my opinion, and many of those in think tanks and academia all across the UK, that this trend of 0 spending in military space defence programs should stop. As one analyst wisely put, “Space underpins everything. The successful military powers of the future are going to be those that most easily and quickly assimilate change in the defence environment to their advantage.”

With India, China, Russia and the US capable of intermediate-advance anti-satellite technology, and the ever growing arsonal of military spy, communication satellites, the advancement in military space planes, and even the development and deployment of hypersonic missiles, the United Kingdom can no longer afford to sit on the sidelines. 

We are however, presented with an opportunity this next term with the upcoming National Defence Review to correct our mistakes, and attempt to catch up to the world standard when it comes to our Space defense. I have compiled the following suggestion in order to catch the RAF up to standard.

Recommendation 1. The Creation of a Defence Space Command under the Royal Air Force.

The UK should follow in the footsteps of India, France, Russia, US and China, and establish an agency/command under the current RAF that deals exclusively with military satellite, satellite tracking and anti-satellite warfare. This organization will also work on the integration of space technology into other branches of the armed forces, like a way to beam high-resolution video directly into RAF cockpits. This would also make funding any future projects easier as well. 

Recommendation 2. Start the development/purchase of Anti-Satellite missiles.

The UK should possess the capabilities to shoot down dangerous or hostile objects in space. We should work with the French in developing the Aster 30 anti-air missile family with anti-satellite capabilities. France has already expressed interest in anti-satellite missiles back in 2016, and the Aster 30 is a stable enough platform to support any type of augmentation. Or alternatively, we could purchase a small arsonal of SM-3 land/sea based or ASM-135 air launched anti-satellite missiles from the US to fill our need.

Recommendation 3. Replace the aging Skynet 5 program.

Skynet 5 communication satellites have dutifully served the armed forces for the last 10 years. These satellites have provided the UK with invaluable resources such as secure communication methods and instant battlefield-command communication globally. We need to replace and upgrade these satellites before they start going out of service. I propose replacing the 4 satellite in Skynet 5 with 6 new satellites in Skynet 6 to increase global presence and coverage. 

Recommendation 4. Develop a new class of reconnaissance satellites.

In the age of information warfare, a pair of eyes in the sky is sometimes key to decide the outcome of a battle. We need our own reconnaissance satellites to assists our UAVs in gathering information for our armed forces. This would also help us monitor situation closely all over the world, and remove our reliance on the NSA for satellite information.

Recommendation 5. Join the US-led Operation Olympic Defender.

It is about time that the UK joined the US and its allies on the research and development of new technologies. Pretty simple here. 

If we are able to include and achieve all five of my recommendations within the next or two Defence review cycle, we will not only have caught up to the rest of the world in technology and capabilities, but potentially become a world leader on the issue. 

Proposed Conservative-Classical Liberal merger confirmed as agreement emerges

On Sunday The Model Telegraph received the document outlining the merger between the Conservatives and Classical Liberals from an anonymous source, with further sources corroborating the story.

This agreement, which can be found here integrates all branches of the Classical Liberals into the Conservative and Unionist party including the newly formed Unionist Liberals into their respective Conservative counterparts, it also terminates all agreements previously made by the Classical Liberals fully integrating the Liberals into the Conservative Party. It remains unclear if such an agreement would cause the Government of Scotland and Wales to collapse.

However, not everything is looking bleak for the Liberals especially in regards to the devolved administrations of Scotland where Duncs11 will become the Leader of Scottish conservatives with _paul_rand_ becoming his deputy and Wales with HiddeVdV96 becoming the Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, whilst also being appointed their third deputy Leader alongside Zygark and CheckMyBrain11. 

The agreement requires a supermajority of both Classical Liberal and Conservative members to consent to it through a vote, according to our sources said vote is being held right now and will end on as soon as Monday. The deal may still be rejected by the membership of either party, the possibility of that is quite high in the Classical Liberals as many of their left-leaning members will most likely choose to reject the deal. 

All in all the agreement empowers the Tories at the expense of Classical Liberals and is likely to provide a significant boost in the upcoming General Election, however, it is still uncertain whether the centre-right Tories will be capable of reconciling their views with the much more left-wing and Europhilic wing of the Classical Liberals, with issues such as immigration and the future relationship with the European Union having to be resolved between the newly merged parties. The agreement stipulated the party will be “committed to the values of liberal conservatism and pro-migration.”

Sources reveal Conservative-Classical Liberal merger talks

The Telegraph has received breaking news from an anonymous source confirming that negotiations between the Conservative and the Classical Liberals on the possibility of a merger between the two parties. According to an anonymous source in the Conservative Party, the Tories were excited about the prospect of merger and its benefits to both parties. The source furthered that merger talks were concluding and a party-wide was expected shortly with Tory head Mili announcing the conclusion of talk to the party just now. 

This potential merger represents a move intended to revive two parties that have seen major declines in popularity. The Classical Liberals once seen as unstoppable under Twisted’s leadership served as kingmakers in Sunrise. However, following the decision by the Classical Liberals to pull out of government and the collapse of Sunrise their support has been in free fall. Their polling has declined from all-time highs to only 7% just a mere 2 points ahead of the DRF. Facing near-certain death, it is no surprise that the Classical Liberals have decided to hold merger talks with the Tories. For them, it may be the last to option to exert any power over Westminster politics.

The Conservatives are a much more complex story. While not facing the same dire polling numbers as the Liberals their activity has been subpar compared to other major parties. As Labour and the LPUK have seen record-breaking polling, the Tories have seen their support slowly decline, although not in crisis mode yet, a potential merger may just give them the activity needed to maintain their position as the largest party in the Commons after the February General Election.

Faces in the CCHQ will be smiling as the expected move will be sure to shore up their polling and secure their position as the leading party in the upcoming elections. The Liberals, on the other hand, may not be as content as this merger comes from a position of weakness and brings an end to their much-storied history. A party once considered a monolith of British politics may face the same fate as the Liberal Party of Lloyd George.

While approval from the leadership of both parties seems likely, the deal reached between them is still an unknown quantity and may be rejected by the Tory membership. Yet an even more likely possibility, is a possibility of dissent from membership of the Classical Liberals, especially from the more left-leaning backbenchers. 

In the context of wider Westminster politics, this will come as unwelcome news in Millbank Tower where Labour has been fighting hard to keep within striking distance of the Tories. Going into the elections it seems a Burple government will prevail if the merger proceeds as planned, however, only time will tell if this will be enough to ensure a majority coalition government.

“The hypocrisy of Labour when it comes to the budget”

Image result for budget box
With the support of the Classical Liberals the governments budget is set to pass the house of commons.

Senior Labour MPs such as /u/Arichteabiscuit are up in arms in the Commons, giving passionate speeches and demanding nothing less of exact definite details of the budget. Anything less and they descend into outrage. But what’s fascinating is that the Shadow Chancellor, my counterpart, stands by his decision to dodge questions and telling me to await the budget. He proudly said at the Sunrise MQ’s that he was not giving me a sneak preview of the budget when I asked him about the direction he was moving taxation in. He told MP’s that specific plans will have to wait and throughout the session MPs in the House were none the wiser on the direction of Sunrise economic policy. It was clear to me at the time that the Shadow Chancellor was treating parliament with nothing but disrespect.

My question to Labour MPs, is where were they demanding parliament have such specific answers back then? The answer is that they don’t care about parliament or accountability but whatever suits their agenda the most. It is hypocrisy at its finest, they know if their man is at the treasury it’s fine to not even provide the slightest direction. In contrast to the shadow chancellor which could not even tell us the direction that taxes would move, I have informed the house we will be freezing income tax, national insurance and VAT. I have also informed the house of how we close the deficit by raising the carbon tax and reviewing welfare spending in the United Kingdom, these answers are far beyond what the Labour Party gave the house of commons during their time in government. Labour back in the 2010s opposed the coalition government’s move to raise VAT and argued this would negatively impact communities so I would be keen to see what what ARichteabiscuit would have to say, as their logic appears to imply that the government should provide full details on all policies at the moment of asking, even when a Government has only been around a matter of weeks and there hasn’t been time to finalise certain details, under the pretence of representing affected communities. Where were they then demanding the specific rate it would be raised to? Surprise Surprise they didn’t.

 Labour MPs are getting restless and showing blatant opportunism in the House of Commons. They have no right to be angry at my detailed responses in contrast to the nonsense splurted out by the Shadow Chancellor. 

Labour’s resident hothead, thePootisPower, who was thrown out of the House for swearing and disrespecting a Deputy Speaker when asked to withdraw wasn’t happy when his parties record was brought up and had no answer for his hypocrisy. This did not stop him from having the cheek to call someone else a petulant child. The reality is that the budget figures are still in the process of being finalised and the house will get to scrutinise them soon, when they are placed before the Souse.

The hypocrisy on display doesn’t stop there with Labour MP /u/apth10 supporting a question tabled by DUP member /u/greejatus on Ambercare calling it a “poison pill”. What he forgets is that Labour voted for the bill, so if it was a poison pill as described by apth10 himself then what does that say of his intelligence given he voted for it? Truly astounding. And then he decided to tell porkies as Labour often do arguing that Ambercare was somehow a Blurple policy despite the fact that I spoke and voted against it, and that it was implemented during the time of the Sunrise Government, enabled by Labour votes. Labour are banking on people not looking at their voting record and policies as if they did their claims would not stand up to scrutiny. 

They complain about the £23 billion deficit yet voted against fiscal responsibility this term and were promising to rack up a deficit much larger than this, all of a sudden Labour want to talk tough on the deficit while promising billions of pounds on pointless nationalisations and spending money on public expenditure programmes like there is no tomorrow. Let’s be clear that Labour would run a larger deficit compared to £23 billion given their plans in sunrise were for a fiscal expansion compared to the status quo, so when they try to talk big on the budget deficit one should actually looking at their voting record and disastrous plans.

Labour may claim to stand for parliamentary scrutiny but only on the condition it does not apply to them while in government, this explains why they broke the law when it came to the climate change act and explains the rampant hypocrisy and double standards of the parliamentary Labour Party. 

This article is an opinion piece by the Chancellor Of The Exchequer /u/friedmanite19

“Fronts, leagues and people’s movements; the rise of the minor radicals”

I believe you can tell a lot about a party from its name. Some of them are quite simple. The Libertarian party, LPUK, are Libertarians; they stand for small government and low taxes. I don’t much like the politics of the Labour party, but you know what you are getting when you vote for them. They’re the *labour* party, they are what they say they are, right there on the tin. In a world where politicians are more eager to sidestep real responsibility than solve problems, I think it’s important the public are informed on who they’re voting for. Most of the major parties have kept to the tradition of being honest with naming their parties after their principles, but now that paradigm has been broken by the DRF, the threat rises too from TPM in the upcoming election.

The three minor parties all have very dubious names. Some of them sound as if they are opposing factions in a middle eastern civil war; is that really the kind of attitude we need in Westminster? Nor do any of their names actually mean anything. Loyalist League? Loyal to what? The crown? The nation? That’s basically unionism. I can somewhat forgive them for the “league” part as it seems it’s more a product of uncreative forced alliteration than anything else.

The DRF at least say something meaningful in their name, these republicans obviously want “democratic” reform, allegedly. But what else? For a party to be legitimate it should have clear group of principles to staunchly stick to, not a single policy. I’m puzzled that they’re a “major” party now, they may well be major on one thing but they’re still a minor force to me. In a bizarre move this week they merged with the Party of Wales (Plaid Cymru), another party with a deliberately vague and entitled name. I suppose there was only room for one group of separatists in Wales. Why they must be called the “front” is beyond me, why not “democratic reform party”? Fronts are for battlefields, not democratic halls of power.

TPM are perhaps the worst of all, inherently arrogant and entitled. Who are they to say they represent the people with a mere two MPs? How can they be the people’s movement when nobody votes for them? An alarming policy of TPM is the abolition of the monarchy, not very popular with the people at all with only ~15% of British people in favour of morphing into a republic. If they’re a movement not a party, they shouldn’t have any business in Westminster; but rather mingling on the outskirts of a fragile and very left-wing student protest. Perhaps TPM designed their name as a substitute for their lack of real popularity among the people and their lack of movement towards number 10.

Why the concern though? My concern is three-fold. Firstly, the minor radicals should be honest with the British people. It should say on the ballot paper who they are and what they want. Every other major party has manged it. It’s deliberate deceit. Make no mistake, the minor radicals are ready to betray Britain and their promises if it benefits their power grab.

Secondly, when these parties rise to power, or seize it, they have the unique ability to interpret loyalty, democracy or “the people” however they wish. They can use their populist methods to justify a great number of wicked things, we’ve seen it all before. They can ping around the political spectrum with remarkable flexibility, laying waste to our constitution and leaving us principled moderates to clear up the mess after they’ve gone.

Thirdly, it’s power without purpose. In the devolved assemblies we have seen power without purpose manifest into chaotic decisions, notably in Northern Ireland. When politicians don’t have a purpose, they resolve to virtue signalling and creating haphazard legislation. If it wasn’t for the sound, moderate and sensible policies of the Classical Liberals, Scotland and Wales would be a mess. I thank the hard work of my party and its members every day for that. It isn’t the point though, the system should be designed so our precious constitution and way of life is protected from this madness, no matter who gains power. These minor radicals have no principles

Labour: Major radical

I noticed an ooze of confidence from the minor radicals this week, more so than their usual arrogance, and not just from the DRF. My suspicions led me to catch up with a major party with a history of dabbling in radical republicanism and nationalism; the Labour party of course.

I asked Sam, on behalf of the Telegraph, if Labour had plans to endorse any of the minor radicals. The reply was suspicious to say the last.

“Labour have negotiated with a variety of parties for endorsement deals.”

When pressed specifically on TPM and the DRF being in that variety, Sam declined to answer any specifics. I think it’s probably safe to say that the minor radicals have certainly been in negotiations with Labour and are most likely endorsed in some places. We could be seeing a lot more of them in Westminster come February. I hope my words are heeded and the British people don’t turn to populist nationalism, including the Labour party.

/u/BrexitGlory is a political pundit and reporter active in Westminster, as well as a Classical Liberal MP.

“The Brexit showstopper – how the former Sunrise parties may kill Brexit once and for all”

/u/CommanderCody is a Libertarian pundit active in Westminster politics.

Throughout its history, the British Parliament has passed hundreds if not thousands of bills, some of the evolutionary and some revolutionary. However very few of them are as ruinous and misguided as B949, commonly known as “The Immigration Bill”, introduced by the former “Sunrise” government.

A bill which has the potential to force government ministers to unwillingly trap the United Kingdom in the European Union and to effectively kill Brexit once and for all, all the while loosening citizenship requirements and opening the British labour market to cheap labour not just from Europe, but a large chunk of the Commonwealth countries.

A question arises “How will immigration reform kill Brexit?” 

Through the first clause of the proposed bill “(1) The Secretary of State is empowered and instructed to enter negotiations with member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Union and members of the Commonwealth of Nations with the objective of a treaty guaranteeing the free movement of workers as set out in section 1 of this Act.”

In the simplest of terms, the government is compelled to work towards freedom of movement with EU, NATO and Commonwealth member states that have 3/4s of the United Kingdom’s Gross National Product, which in itself is nigh impossible and had previously been ruled out by the EU itself, with Michael Barnier the EU chief negotiator saying “…as far as I’m aware there is no way to simply allow the wealthy countries in and not the rest. Nor would we want that”, however, the catch is in the fact that the government is “empowered and instructed” read legally compelled to negotiate with the European Union “with the objective of a treaty guaranteeing the free movement of workers”. 

This is incredibly problematic as Freedom of Movement is one of the “four freedoms” or cornerstones of the European Single Market, which are defined as “free movement of people, goods, services and capital”.

Said freedoms are considered inseparable by the European Union as stated by Mr Barnier “the stance of the European Union that the four freedoms are indivisible. Freedom of Movement cannot work without the other three, nor can the other three work without it”, thus to comply with the legal requirement set out by the bill the Government would be forced to accept all 4 freedoms of the single market, effectively trapping Britain in the Single market creating a limbo between Leave and Remain, all the while the results of 2 referendums, which soundly rejected both Remain and the Single Market are ignored.

Yet the issues posed by this piece of legislation don’t end with the death of Brexit, the legislation lays out plans to drastically reduce the requirements for the granting of a British citizenship and allows “unintentional administrative errors made by an applicant when filling out forms.”, effectively giving applicants the license to lie when applying for citizenship, allows certain immigrants to claim benefits in the United Kingdom and selectively chooses, which countries’ citizens are worthy of working in the United Kingdom all in the name of “diversity”.

One question remains, however, is the Opposition attempting to bring back its failed Brexit strategy through the backdoor or is it so out of touch that it is expecting the European Union to budge on something  which had been ruled out only a couple of months ago…

Tommy1boys parting words – “A moderate, one nation Conservative led Government would be my choice in the current political reality.”

In a tell all interview Tommy1Boys reflected on his parties time in government.

Tommy1Boys no doubt massively influenced UK politics having been one of the leading voices within the Classical Liberals to advocate leaving the Liberal Alliance and join the broadright brexit coalition in order to leave the European Union with a deal. He was one of the leaders of the Pizza group with lobbied the then Classical Liberal leader twistednuke to leave the coalition. 

His resignation as Foreign Secretary was a vital moment and ultimately lead to the downfall of the Wagbo government. During the Brexit coalition he played a central part in the government and as a Classical Liberal Deputy Leader played an important role in the run up to the Brexit deadline. 

Despite being a passionate advocate of the broadright coalition and its brexit policy Mr 1 Boys was one of the most vocal critics of the Blurple coalition which won an outright majority in the General election. He led opposition voices to the government’s controversial prescription charge plans and legalisation of use of tear gases. It is important to note he did walk through the Aye lobby for a good chunk of gregfest bills but did not keep opposition to himself when he opposed the coalition. This won him few friends in the Conservatives and Libertarians. 

He advocated for the so called Exec co government after it was clear the Conservatives and LPUK could not command a majority in the house but took a job in sunrise and worked hard to make it work defending it to the hilt in its early days. Sunrise was never a stable coalition so it’s safe to say it didn’t end how he would have liked. He took over the leadership of the Classical Liberals and the role of Deputy Prime Minister  part way through the coalition however as time went on divisions in the government became clear over British steel and a series of left wing bills pushed by minister jgm0228 which alienated Classical Liberal MP’s and even backbench Liberal Democrat’s. He finally had enough and urged his own party to leave Sunrise which in the end led to the fall of the government. His career has no doubt had its ups and downs but he will be proud of achieving the title of Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign as he leaves the frontline of UK politics have left a sizeable mark on the landscape.

The Telegraph got the chance to conduct a tell all interview with the former Deputy Prime Minister and his reflections on the inner working of Sunrise.

When asked what his reasons for the Classical Liberals leaving Sunrise Mr 1 Boys told the telegraph that

 Really it was 3 fold. The first is that it was clear Sunrise could not provide stable leadership for the country. Sure my party could have continued in the coalition, but things had ground to a halt and the public could see at every moment we seemed to be hours from collapse. A country does not need that, and I am especially thankful now that in this incredibly dangerous international incident, we do have stable Government. The second reason is that it was clear there was not enough policy agreement for us to continue to work together. Following the decision by Labour to abandon the coalition agreement over trains, a hard won negotiating concession, we could not realistically carry on. Finally, the rudderless nature of the Government, a PM who for reasons out of his control was not as active as needed, and as DPM I did not have the political capital to lead the Government in his absence, it simply became an unworkable coalition that had to end.”


When pressed he was hesitant to condemn jgm0028 despite the rumours of his part in the collapse of the coalition, Mr 1 Boys described him as “one of the hardest working members of the coalition” and told us that they “worked extremely close on immigration reform” but admitted they did have “heated arguments” and that his legislation was disliked by the Classical Liberal backbenchers

At the beginning of the term pundits examined the Queen’s speech and saw this government as Classically Liberal dominated with key Clib policies being in the speech so it is surprising how the Classical Liberals pulled out. Mr 1 Boys told the telegraph that” Labour undoubtedly went back on their word as the record shows. “ He accused Labour of not being uphold their side of bargain with regards to the railway bill. 

A lot of the controversial bills in sunrise were not in the coalition agreement but were signed off by the Classical liberals. Mr 1 Boys spoke frankly admitting his “Predecessor did approve too many bills without seeking dialogue with our back benches, and it is something I improved as leader. “ He was also quick to point out that the Liberal Democrat backbenchers were just to oppose some of the legislation in question such as the labour rights mitigation bill.

When pressed about his predecessors role in the ultimate demise of the coalition Mr 1 Boys said that twistednuke was “was and is one of my dearest friends in politics,” but conceded that  they “were a bit to the left of the Classical Liberal membership which caused problems” and that that “bills were accepted without enough being done to look at whether or not the back benches of the Clibs and LDems would accept them.”

“No party is free from blame and as Deputy Prime Minister and as leader of the party that led us out of the coalition I shoulder a significant proportion of the blame and I will always regret not being able to save the coalition, but yes I believe my predecessor’s actions did not help the coalition stability, although not as much as some of Labour’s later actions.”

Tommy1Boys giving his opinion on the collapse of the sunrise government

He rejected the notion that he was responsible for a Blurple government reiterating his preference was for a Labour- Liberal Democrat government and that it is the Liberal Democrat’s withdrawal that led to the blurple government. When asked if he could envisage the Classical Liberals working with Labour again he said “I do not believe the current Labour Leader has behaved in a way that suggests he wants to work with us.” Talking about what he would personally support the telegraph in a revealing response said “Ii would personally support a Labour led administration if I felt that a Conservative led one would return to the days of the first Blurple Government and the misery they tried to inflict on the British people in the name of ideology. A moderate, one nation Conservative led Government would be my choice in the current political reality.” After the last few months this is quite an interesting development.

When asked what his biggest regret the ex Deputy Prime Minister said his biggest  regret was “not making more progress on the JCPOA. As FoSec I worked hard to bring parties back around the table and I was proud that France, Germany, Iran and the US all agreed to return to the negotiating table and positive noises were coming from those talks. The JCPOA was possibly the greatest act of diplomacy in the 21st century, and the decision by this Government to ditch it makes the world a more dangerous place. Citizens are less safe in this bed because of that decision, and I never thought I’d say that about a Tory Government.”  Mr 1 Boys was a key opponent of the government’s plans to withdraw from the JCPOA. On the current situation he told the telegraph that he welcomed the government’s reversal and said he was proud to have assembled a team of former prime ministers and finally he praised the PM arguing that “the PM should be applauded not shamed for this u-turn”

Finally we asked Mr 1 Boys about the budget agreement reached between the Classical Liberals and the government and he sounded positive about the budget which is extraordinary given his past policy disagreements with the LPUK. He told the telegraph he was “pleased a budget agreement has been made,” he stated this was not his dream budget but said the budget “will be of a material benefit to those getting a tax cut, and those people in Scotland and Wales who are getting more money from central government. The chancellor should be congratulated on his hard work and also to my friend HiddeVdV96 for coming to such an agreement and sticking To our principles. “He anticipated future criticism saying that “some may attack us over it   unlike the Lib Dem’s who wants to scrap the triple lock so they can raise your taxes, I happen to think tax rises on the worst off are a bad way to go about things, and keeping the triple lock is good for everyone. “ He is clearly still an influential figure in the Classical Liberals being finance minister in Scotland and if recent events tell us anything he is going to continue to voice his opinions and seek change to change the country.