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.
Tomorrow morning, protestors will take to the street in defiance over the Government’s ongoing plans to reform policing powers. Seen by some as a much-needed boost to our already strained law enforcement, and others as an assault on Democracy – Lord Henry John Temple, Baron Carrickfergus, explores the thin line between the rule of law, and authoritarianism.
Across the Country, the Opposition has been hard at work – in what may well be one of an ever increasingly rare example of them working together – to bring people into the streets in a day of protest against the Government’s planned policing reform. Opposition Leaders have made it clear that they stand against what they are branding ‘a Tear Gas Coalition’, keeping to their rhetoric that the right wing is somehow, always in the wrong. By contrast, the Government is peeling back the letter of the law, and examining the minutiae beneath, by way of offering justification for the reforms, seemingly unaware that much of the general public has neither the time, nor the inclination, to set about lawyering the laws of the land.
Like it or not, ‘Tear Gas Coalition’ has captured the emotions of the British Public, and tomorrow will be the teller that shows to what extent this has been achieved.
Yet, just how accurate is the statement, and ought conservatives on all sides of the house – who purport to respect Law & Order – reconsider how they plan to vote on the final reading of this bill, in light of the concerns?
It cannot be denied that there are legitimate causes to desire the changes of outdated Acts, however – as has been pointed out by /u/ContrabannedMC (and others) on more than one occasion – not only is tear banned in the practise of war, but also, across the spectrum of police command, widely considered to not be of effective use. Yet, the Government continues onward, like a Bull in a China shop, revelling in their majority (which is only advanced by a poor turnout and lack of unity on the opposition benches) to press ahead, no compromise, and no compassion, being the name of the game.
It is no secret that, when I was in the lower House, I supported the bill, also submitting an amendment to remove the revocation of the tear gas restriction, and I maintain that it takes the correct steps to shore up the powers of the Police in dangerous times. However, one cannot pick and choose when one respects the rule of law.
The international community is clear, using tear gas on protestors is a blurs a very thin line in international law, and this element of the bill must be removed if it is to be passed in good conscience by the Conservatives and Libertarians who consider themselves to be respectful of the rule of law, in and of its entirety.
As such, in what feels uncharacteristic for me to say, until such as a time as the Government removes the revocation of the Tear Gas element of the Bill, and confirms – with legislation to support it – that Tear Gas will be illegal for use on the streets of the United Kingdom, I support tomorrows protests wholeheartedly.
Lord Henry John Temple is a member of the House of Lords, in which he sits as a Loyalist League Peer. He campaigns in Northern Ireland as part of the Democratic Unionist Party, having been a member of the LPUK (in which he was MP for Sussex) and NUP. A conservative commentator, views expressed here are his own.
This column was written for The Daily Telegraph by DUP Baron HenryJohnTemple of Carrickfergus as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors.
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.
The age in our society where one is responsible for voting, being elected and maintaining positions in the government is one of enormous burden, and it is a burden that we should expect only of those that can be reasonably expected to be a fully functioning and participating member of society. While it is regrettable, the recent change to the voting age is not one that fulfils these criteria, and it cannot be said that the right will be exercised correctly on either their behalf or the behalf of the entire society at large. These are decisions that affect us all, and we should all strive to see how we can improve our voter base.
The idea that individuals can make decisions on behalf of our country is grounded in the fact that they have an understanding of the country, of our society, of the function of our government. In the modern age, this is something that is indisputably tied to education and experience. This fact may be depressing to those of younger age – nobody is disputing the tragedy and disparity those who feel disenfranchised may feel as a result. Their opinions on all things are not invalid; they are uninformed. Through no fault of any of them, the subset of those who have not experienced what it is like to work, what it is like to serve for their country, what it is like to experience a modicum of adulthood simply do not have the proper mindset to be deciding the path for all of our country, for all of our society.
In theory, the agreeability of having a statement of absolute suffrage is a vital and insurmountable key to democracy, something that all people accept and strive for. To those who have lived, who have worked, to those who have had their idealism tempered by reality, we understand that universal wide-reaching privileges like these may need to be withheld for some time.
Just as the right to damage the body with certain substances are withheld to those who we deem incapable of understanding or fully interpreting the risks, the right to damage society should be kept safe to those who are involved in it. We know the dangers of exploitation, we know the fear of those who contribute less than ourselves, we know that there are times when we must hold our nose and say “not yet” to responsibilities that will be a burden to a younger generation while doing the best we can on their behalf.
As we do not hold dear to our hearts the idea that someone that is 16 can be a CEO, an airline pilot, a Prime Minister, we should not also hold the idea that these individuals can uphold the ideal of safeguarding our democracy. This is a job that is the most important job of all citizens of the United Kingdom. It is a job that requires education, a job that requires experience, a job that requires citizenship and all the responsibilities that come with it. It is a job for those of age, and the age for that across the world is uniform with few exceptions.
As regrettable as it may be for those looking forward at a longer time in the shadow of these responsibilities, the country will be better for their sacrifice.
This piece was written for The Daily Telegraph by Conservative MP Anomaline as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors. The MTMG thanks Anomaline for their opinion editorial.
I read the Baron Granthams OP-Ed in The Times with great interest as everyone I am sure many did owing his not inconsiderable expertise. His analysis of matters of the law is meticulous but in areas of morality and legitimacy I find his arguments much less persuasive and so following the debate in the house and questioning by the the luminaries of the House of Lords General Committee I wish to now take the case to the country.
But before I do I take issue with a number of points made in that Op-Ed, firstly the suggestion that Hirst should be seen as a floor. I content that Hirst as a ruling only sets out principles in which a parliament should consider limitations on the right to vote for prisoners. In this we see that Hirst isn’t a floor but instead boundary conditions upon a continuum of acceptable solutions. I shall set out later, why I my proposal sets bar where it is and also why parliament and not the courts needs to be the one to do the setting.
My last quam is the Lord Grantham’s suggestion that 50% of the house of commons does not support the proposal. This I fear is a weak argument, not only do neither of us know how MPs will vote but even if a majority of our elected representative are opposed to the bill then it is still right that they consider it and voter may evaluate them on that basis. And thirdly his calculation of over 50% of the house opposes prisoner votes relies on the LPUK opposing it. But I know very well from discussions with cabinet colleagues, and backbenchers across government as well as talks outside of government. That this bill has wide ranging support, and much to the consternation of the noble lord some members support an even harsher policy than the one that I am proposing.
But turning to the substance of the question, I feel it is inaccurate to speak of suffrage as “universal” in any context while retaining complete accuracy, indeed the word does not appear in Protocol 1 Article 3 for very good reasons it is wholly unworkable legally, and it was purposely excluded from the text by British negotiators no less! In no state is the right to vote enjoyed by citizens without qualifications, and there are many different legitimate grounds for qualifying the right in exceptional circumstances. I believe prisoners who have committed a sufficiently serious crime to have been handed a long custodial sentence to be one of these circumstances.
The qualifications put in place required wildly differ from state to state as does circumstances, culture and history. With respect to prisoners even within signatories of the ECHR there is huge variety, some justifications such as France allows a trial judge to disenfranchise based upon the proportionality of the crime, Germany applies a system whereby crimes against the state and democracy are punished with disenfranchisement, in Italy prisoners with life sentences may be permanently disenfranchised and lesser sentences result in shorter periods of disenfranchisement and Malta disenfranchises all prisoners sentenced for a period greater than one year. And there are many more unique systems as well as other countries which like us currently have full suffrage for prisoners.
This is all to say, this is not a question of law, the ECHR did not impose upon Britain an obligation to pass the Human Rights Extension Act 2015 it only it explicitly stated in its conclusion that;
“it will be for the United Kingdom Government in due course to implement such measures as it considers appropriate to fulfil its obligations to secure the right to vote in compliance with this judgment.”
The obligation was to simply bring forward legislative proposals that fulfilled the courts requirements for proportionality and a legitimate aim.
What the Human Rights Extension Act 2015 did was catapult Britain from one extreme to another. Parliament has never been given the opportunity to consider anything but these two extremes and I am glad that the proposals that I have brought before the house will remedy this lack of consideration.
The government’s plan will give the house an opportunity to consider for the first time, legislation that keeps us a compliant member of the ECHR, maintaining our standing on human rights internationally. While rationally qualifying the right to vote.
This is not something that should be ignored or left to the courts indeed the courts themselves have told us that they cannot decide where on the spectrum of possibilities we should be. In the landmark Hirst ruling the ECtHR itself said:
The Court accepts that this is an area in which a wide margin of appreciation should be granted to the national legislature in determining whether restrictions on prisoners’ right to vote can still be justified in modern times and if so how a fair balance is to be struck.
European Court of Human Rights
The current system is patiently unacceptable it to me, David Cameron said the thought of prisoner votes made him feel sick. While I am not queasy I feel a deep moral sense that those who break the law and violate the norms of our society, the rights of others or our shared institutions should not be in a position to make the law. My thesis is that laws and rights only have meaning within the context of a community that accepts them, the most serious offenders have ignored those and caused great damage. They should not automatically qualify to vote, doing so retains agency over the lives they have wreaked.
But let’s be honest Dave wasn’t physically sick at the thought of people convicted of misdemeanors voting. What’s galling and difficult for many good decent Britons to swallow is the idea that the absolute universal inclusion of prisoners gives the same voting rights to unapologetic murderers as for them. This sense of equity between two people who should not be treated as equal because of their different choices and actions, erodes our civic responsibility people see this and question the value of the right to vote. “If that person is worthy of the right to vote, why should I bother? Or why should I put time into making a good choice?” This harms our democracy and the rule of law.
Rationally qualifying the right to vote can be a powerful symbol against democratic malaise, that reinforces the value of the right to vote by showing that we remove it in certain circumstances because certain people should not exercise it – and we go to the bother because it is a valuable part of our democracy.
The social rejection of serious crime reflects a moral line in the sand that safeguards the social contract and the rule of law. This point is underlined by how we police in this country, we do not police by SWAT cars or force, we police by consent, working with communities not suppressing them. It is critical for this approach to work that crime is socially condemned and that we maintain buy into society. The promotion of civic responsibility may be abstract or symbolic concept, but it is a primary goal of government and fundamental to our society it should not be looked down upon for being abstract or symbolic.
Prisoner votes threatens this balance, it fails to attach a civic consequence to serious crime to clearly condemn it. It treats prisoners as universally worthy of voting and influencing our society when clearly there is variation and nuance.
For these reasons our proposals take a middle road between blanket bans and a blanket right to vote. We will stop people with long custodial sentences of over six years from voting, this will prevent those who committed serious crimes and violated significantly the rights of their fellow citizens from being able to vote.
We also note that forgiveness is a key conservative value and a fundamental purpose of the justice system aside from reparation or punishment is rehabilitation. Therefore we have included in the proposal a mechanism by which prisoners who are sentenced to greater than a six year term may apply for re-enfranchisement provided that they meet criteria such as being remorseful. We think this is a fair compromise and we do not wish to prevent prisoners from having an opportunity for civic engagement provided that they are on the path towards rehabilitation and indeed hope that this may incentivise some prisoners to more strongly engage in rehabilitation programs out of a desire to reacquire the right to vote. And irregardless of the success of our proposals in the voting lobbies, we as a government are committed to reducing crime through rehabilitation. We will reduce overcrowding and improve access to prison libraries. We might not feel that all prisoners deserve the right to vote absolutely, but we equally believe that every prisoner should be given the best opportunity to turn their lives around.
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?
A statement from the powers that be tonight confirm that Leafy_emerald has been asked to form a coalition following successful internal votes within the Conservatives and Libertarian Parties. A similar proposal was rejected by the Tories to coalition with the Classical Liberals, although Telegraph Sources understand that it was a close decision.
A statement from the powers that be tonight confirm that Leafy_emerald has been asked to form a coalition following successful internal votes within the Conservatives and Libertarian Parties.
A similar proposal was rejected by the Tories to coalition with the Classical Liberals, although Telegraph Sources understand that it was a close decision.
The Press Director for the Conservative Party released the following short statement when asked for comment.
“We are very pleased to be back in government, this time with the LPUK. We’re looking forward to developing strong policies and putting Britain back on track with our partners.”
pjr10th
Speaking about the failed vote within the Conservative Party, Classical Liberal leader Twistednuke said he was “pretty disappointed” with the decision, adding:
“I think [The Classical Liberals] have a record of delivering our commitments in Government, reforming mental health, tackling the housing crisis, fixing local government et cetera, and the Tories would have found us a valuable partner.”
Twistednuke
The Traffic Light Coalition will form the official opposition led by Labour Leader WillShakespeare99, with the Liberal Democrats, Greens and Plaid Cymru all working within it.
The Leader of the Official Opposition, speaking to the press for the first time in his role, explained what he wants to get out of this term.
“One of the centerpieces of my election campaign was the Worker’s New Deal, and it will be one of my key priorities in the days and weeks ahead. I think it will do a lot good, giving ordinary people a pay rise, limiting pay inequality and restricting, and democratising executive pay, introducing reforms to vacation time and sick leave to offer worker’s a better situation in those areas.”
WillShakespeare99
When asked about the dangers of a Conservative – LPUK Government, he explained why he is not downhearted after tonight’s events.
“Seeing the LPUK – a party whose values and policies do not, in my view, serve working people – enter Government for the next six months fills me with a renewed sense of purpose to provide good, constructive, and impactful opposition.”
WillShakespeare99
The Classical Liberals, New Britain and Climate Rebellion will be the parties sitting in Unofficial Opposition.
Friedmanite19 is no stranger to the role of Deputy Prime Minister, taking it up in the Brexit Caretaker Government. When asked for comment, he told The Telegraph that:
“We are feeling optimistic about the future of the country , Britain is on the verge on real change with this new coalition which will radically improve lives up and down the country. The LPUK has come a long way since its formation and we are excited to form the next government and start reforming Britain and deliver upon manifesto pledges”
Friedmanite19
On key priorities for the term, he told this paper:
“Tax reform is high on our agenda along with reforms to make our immigration laws fairer , our education better and to introduce competition into the transport , protecting our national security and renewing trident sector amongst many more policies”
Friedmanite19
On reaching out to other parties, specifically asked whether compromise was on the table, he was less specific.
“The Government’s door will be open to MPs across the house to see where we can find common ground to improve the lives of all Britons”
Friedmanite19
The Cabinet is due to be announced in the next few days, followed by a Queen’s Speech. This will be based of the coalition agreement leaked to The Telegraph earlier today. Stay up to date with all the latest developments with The Telegraph.
This article was written in my capacity as a journalist, and not as an MP or member of the Classical Liberal Leadership
In another in a line of leaks around the Coalition Negotiations, The Daily Telegraph can reveal the details of the TLC coalition deal.
A copy of a deal, which was sent to The Daily Telegraph by a source who has asked to remain anonymous, details the Cabinet structure, policy and code of conduct of a possible TLC government (comprising the Labour Party, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru).
A Red Cabinet
The Cabinet, which is Labour Led seems to be a pretty standard cabinet, with not too many changes to its structure. The TLC has replaced the Department for Exiting the European Union with a Department for European Relations (which it is calling a Great Office of State) and has also introduced a Secretary of State for Democratic Reform, which has seemingly been merged with the Cabinet Office. A very notable posting is the Equalities Secretary, something which the TLC has been pushing for in a while.
The Department for Business, Energy and Climate change has been split (with a new Mutuals Minister also being created), while the Department for International Trade and International Development has been merged.
The new deal would see WillShakespeare99 as Prime Minister, with Estoban06, the recently appointed Leader of the Liberal Democrats as his deputy.
One notable post missing from the cabinet is the controversial Cornwall position, which was created by the TLC as a shadow position towards the end of last term. There is also a Minister without Portfolio, although it is not revealed who this is.
In response to the Cornwall question, the Shadow Secretary of State for Cornwall in the last opposition said
I am deeply disappointed that some coalition elements did not agree with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens on the issue of Cornwall, and as such vetoed the future existence of my cabinet role. I still consider myself an ardent fighter for Cornish rights, and the Liberal Democrats are committed to providing a fair deal for Cornwall.
throwawayravenclaw MP
This follows some changes made by the Conservative-led coalitions in their various leaked deals, with the splitting of BECC and the upgrading of Equalities to a full cabinet post (albeit in the case of the right wing governments, as a part of the Culture Department).
The possible future PM or Leader of the Opposition, Will Shakespeare told The Daily Telegraph:
If the reports about a so-called “Blurple” deal are right then we will be heading to Official Opposition tonight, but I hold out hope and nothing is confirmed until it’s official. I am extremely confident that if we get the opportunity we can form a good, hard working, productive, and progressive Government that will achieve and deliver for the British people and serve them well.
WillShakespeare99
In response to questions from The Daily Telegraph, Estoban06, the possible future Deputy Prime Minister said:
I’m confident we have a unifying deal between ourselves, Labour, the Greens and Plaid. Our ability to form government will all depend on parliamentary arithmetic, but rest assured should we get a chance at Government we will serve the nation to the best of our ability. Cabinet positions are divided proportionally, as such I’m perfectly happy with the amounts between the parties. We don’t have a Cornwall position as at the minute it would serve no real purpose, but we have committed to examining Cornish devolution in our deal, and if devolution occurs we will create a post dealing with it, but there is no real need for it right now.
Estoban06, Leader of the Liberal Democrats The Daily Telegraph notes that its copy of the deal does not include policies on Cornwall. The questions were as follows: “I have received a copy of your deal. Are you confident in your ability to form a government? Are you happy with such a Labour dominated cabinet? Can you comment on the lack of existance of a Cornwall Department?”
The Leader of the Green Party said:
I am fully confident that we have the policies this country needs, though I worry that the Tories may betray their voters with an alliance with the LPUK. I think we negotiated some great environmental policies. Labour and the Lib Dems were extremely receptive to our stance on the environment.
zombie-rat
Meanwhile, ViktorHR, the leader of Plaid Cymru said, in response to a question of whether the deal does enough for Wales said:
Yes, and I am happy to be able to contribute to it. Plaid Cymru and the TLC have great relations and have been able to agree on a number of topics. Wales will be getting more funding per head similar to the Scottish model, the TLC has agreed to back the Welsh Government plan for another devolution referendum, and many more project fundings can be expected.
Some Key Policies
Brexit: The TLC will negotiate a Ukraine+ deal while also re-negotiating with countries with whom we have trade deals through the EU, promising Parliament a vote on any treade deal.
Democratic Reform: The TLC look to ‘explore alternatives’ to the Lords, introduce more Proportional Representation and create a codified constitution.
Economy: The TLC hope to measure ‘Gross National Happiness’ and ‘Adjusted National Product’ to replace various current measures, restructure RBS, cur beer duty and raise inheritance tax and carbon tax.
Home: Hire new police officers, offer asylum to LGBT+ and expand Refugee Resettlement from Syria.
Education: Charge tax on Private Schools, establish a ‘school digitisation task force’, promote apprenticeships and physical education and reduce examinations.
Energy/Climate Change: 50% emuissions by 2025, 99% emissions by 2030 (no further details given), ban diesel/petrol cars within 11 years, introduce foreign power tariffs, invest in renewable energy and introduce an Environmental Bill of Rights
Business: Introduce a Workers’ New Deal, allow employee buyouts, nationalise Royal Mail and extend Freedom of Information to private businesses.
Transport: A large transport plan (called ‘Getting Britain Moving’, the same name the Tories used in their manifesto), electrify Welsh railways and close London City Airport.
Housing/Local Government: Repeal Right to Buy, build 300,000 council homes a year and maintain the Green Belt,
Devolved Nations: Introduce ‘Devolution on Demand’, deliver on the Welfare referendum, increase funding per head in Wales and increase devolution in England (offering it to any area with less than 1 million people).
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: Introduce restrictions on Newspaper ownership, restrict ticket touts, increase supporter rights in footbal clubs and introduce spending declarations on charities.
Equalities: Explore representation of women and minority groups in Parliament (no further details)
Estoban06 assured that the TLC have ‘the approximate cost’ of their policies, and that the Liberal Democrats ‘ look forward to having a chance to either filling the spot of Chancellor or else opposing them.’
In response to questions about enviornmental policy in the deal, the Leader of the Green Party said:
I am fully confident that we have the policies this country needs, though I worry that the Tories may betray their voters with an alliance with the LPUK. I think we negotiated some great environmental policies. Labour and the Lib Dems were extremely receptive to our stance on the environment.
zombie-rat
Meanwhile, ViktorHR, the leader of Plaid Cymru said, in response to a question of whether the deal does enough for Wales said:
Yes, and I am happy to be able to contribute to it. Plaid Cymru and the TLC have great relations and have been able to agree on a number of topics. Wales will be getting more funding per head similar to the Scottish model, the TLC has agreed to back the Welsh Government plan for another devolution referendum, and many more project fundings can be expected.
There are many more policies in the document, which are available to be read in full here.
In all, this looks like a standard left-wing agreement, however the TLC would not be able to match up to a deal involving the Conservatives and any other party.
For now, it remains to be seen who the next government will involve.
In an explosive leak to The Telegraph, policies of a potential Conservative-LPUK Government have emerged.
The document, seen exclusively by this paper, shows plans to slash Tobacco duty by 10%, Alcohol duty cut by 50% in pubs and 25% in shops and levy a new prescription charge on all but the least well off patients and students at £10.
Amongst other things, there is an attack on free school meals, a pledge to decrease Vehicle Excise Duty and a commitment to raise Carbon Tax.
A surprising lack of detail on immigration suggests common ground on the nitty gritty could not be reached, when compared with the immigration proposals set out in the Conservative – Classical Liberal – New Britain agreement. A vague commitment for a “points based system” is all that is reported on this area.
The Coalition agreement says the Common Fisheries Policy will be replaced with something which gives British boats the sole access to fishing in the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone around Britain.
One interesting measure that caught the eye of this paper was a commitment to review GPs pay. It is widely known that the LPUK demanded a cut to GPs pay in Liberal Alliance talk following the last election, and whilst no details have been released it could be that this is very much on the cards.
Sources from both parties are split on whether or not this policy will lead to a cut in GPs pay. One said that “anything and everything is on the table”, whilst the other said they “do not think” cuts will take place. Nobody I have spoken to in either parties have denied that this is a possibility.
Both leadership teams were contacted but declined to comment for this story.
This article was written in my capacity as a journalist, and not as an MP or member of the Classical Liberal Leadership
As coalition negotiations draw to a close, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal another government possibility.
A leak sent anonymously to The Sunday Telegraph has revealed the structure of the cabinet in a Conservative-Libertarian Government, commonly referred to as the ‘Blurple’ government.
The evidence (pictured below) reveals that the Conservatives are planning a government with the LPUK, after it was revealed by MChallenge yesterday that they were also negotiating with the Classical Liberals and New Britain.
Leaked Cabinet from the Agreement
The leaked screenshot is from the Coalition Agreement between the two parties and shows which parties would get which cabinet positions in a government.
The Tories would keep the job of Prime Minister, making this Leafy_Emerald’s fifth government in the role, while Friedmanite19 would still be Deputy Prime Minister.
Some Departments have also changed. A new ‘Minister of State for Security’ has been created under the Home Secretary, although no further details of the role have been changed, while the controversial decision of the last government to merge the Departments for Energy & Climate Change and the Department for Business has been reversed.
A larger change is the apparent change of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to “Equalities, Culture and Media”, also abolishing the Minister of State for Equalities and moving Sport along to the Health Department.
This matches changes seen in the Con-CLib-NB, leaked by MChallenge yesterday. However, the CLib cabinet is vastly more populated by Tories, with them holding numerously more roles in the more centre of the two.
eelsemaj99, the Deputy Leader of the Conservatives, said,
I am unhappy that this leaked but yes I am very content with the cabinet we negotiated as part of the agreement.
eelsmaj99
Friedmanite19 said he is absolutely happy with the make up of the cabinet.
The anonymous source also revealed that the Conservatives originally wanted New Britain to be a part of this Blurple government, however, despite their efforts, Akc8 refused to work with the LPUK.
eelsemaj said,
We [the Conservatives] approached New Britain about forming a deal with the LPUK but ultimately they decided that in good faith they couldn’t negotiate a deal with a party with whom they fundamentally agree with, and we respect their decision. We hope to work with all parties across the house in or out of government where we have agreement.
eelsemaj99
The leader of New Britain akc8 said the reason for this refusal was because his party and the LPUK are ‘incompatible parties’.
We did reject the idea with working with the LPUK as ultimately we are incompatible parties. We are a centre left third way party that seeks to use the state to better the lives of all people in the country, which is in direct contrast to the small state ideals of the LPUK. While last term the government was needed to stop the no deal emergency this term we have MPs that need to respect the manifesto we were elected on. We would be unable to do this in government with a much larger LPUK.
akc8
In response to the leak, Friedmanite said “If is true then I respect their decision, and will always be willing to work with them productively on areas we can find common ground.”
If these leaks are true and this agreement is the foundation of the next government (provided both the LPUK and the Tories decide to go for it), it may show that the Tories have moved right, supporting a party some have even gone as far to call extremist. Or, could we be seeing a softening of the LPUK’s stance, with them ready to commit to a term of government with the party from which they broke away, and happy to work with a party that labels itself “centre-left”. And the cabinet is clearly more in favour of the LPUK and the Tories, as the Tories have a smaller proportion of the cabinet seats than the LPUK, but have they gained in other areas? The policies of a Blurple Government are still yet to be known.
What we can tell is that whatever happens, the next government certainly won’t be the same old.
Model Telegraph 