Model Telegraph

*Written by MatthewHinton12345, FSoS and Defence Secretary*

It has become something of a pacifist shibboleth to prate about the changing nature of warfare, that asymmetrical combat demands a departure from the hulls, hardware and boots on the ground that people more often than not associate with Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. While an emphasis on counter-insurgency may have been fleetingly credible for the mid-2000s, when coming from authoritative and well-intentioned quarters at the very least, it has never been the case that an island nation with far-flung dependencies and global defence commitments could sensibly absolve itself of traditional military capability and engagement. Therefore, any attempt to advocate for such a transition can legitimately be classified as either ignorant or malign. Ignorant of the realities of warfare and malign to the United Kingdom’s, and that of our allies, prosperity and security. Fielding a broad and powerful range of planes, ships and vehicles that pack a punch and aid in the rapid deployment of the world’s most elite servicemen and women has never been more critical. It is not an either-or, and indeed it must not be one; we have and will continue to invest in cutting-edge conventional capability and nascent technologies too.

It remains a pellucid and sobering fact that now more than ever we must invest properly in defence. A resurgent Russia that makes incursions into sovereign airspace with ever-increasing frequency and assassinates foreign nationals on the soil of a nuclear power, coupled with a Communist dictatorship that is hellbent on flouting international law to subjugate the people of Hong Kong and colonise the South China Sea, mean the danger has never been more real. The threats the United Kingdom faces have never been more multifarious and exigent, and we must rise to the challenge, and our global obligations, to ensure we retain the ability and resolve to defend ourselves, our way of life and our international partners. That means retaining a deep and wide spectrum of capability, encompassing land, sea and air, not to mention sharp diplomatic and economic teeth, to ensure this country continues to punch well above its weight. It is beyond vital that the United Kingdom does not lose its nerve and relegate itself below other powers, cowering behind their weapons and promises for its protection.

This country is preeminent in many respects, and we remain at the forefront of military potency. In order to stay there, we must, as a nation, wake up and smell the coffee. While the government I am proud to serve in is acutely cognisant of the dangers this country faces, what is needed is a total shift in the national mood and an end to the somnolent complacency that the West has drifted into. It is time for everyone in NATO, and those affiliated with it, to honour the commitments they have made to spend 2% of GDP on defence, not just for themselves, but for the practical and indeed moral integrity of the security partnership that has been the lynchpin of our defence policy since its inception. Robust and responsible coalitions of like-minded democracies are incisive tools for fighting international roguishness and human rights abuses, and we must utilise them more to drive our common, democratic agenda forwards.

Having the means to back up words with actions is all well and good, but nations that sit idly by and put their fingers to their lips in obedience when atrocities are committed have not only lost their moral standing but are very unlikely to nail their colours to the mast and take decisive action when it is required. This is why the United Kingdom must now harness its newfound freedom and geopolitical blank slate to establish itself as an active, courageous and upstanding member of the international community. We must branch out and form new alliances while strengthening old ones so that the U.K. and those with whom we agree on the inviolable and sacred principles of democracy, tolerance and humanity can speak with growing authority and clarity to those who don’t share in our respect for those values. We must face up to the harsh reality and be prepared to back up our words with actions, for we can not afford to sit idly by. As those who wish to do us harm build themselves up, military, economically and politically, we must do the same. It is time for those who have been contributing to contribute more, and for those who haven’t to step up to the plate, for all of our collective good. What we are witnessing in Hong Kong is not an exception to the rule, or an anomaly, such encroachments on freedom will not recede. We must step up, for life as we know it, not only for us but for billions across the world, depends on it. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Written by David Seimarsson, Editor in Chief of the Telegraph*

A Telegraph investigation has found comments from new Tory Leader of the House of Lords Jas1066, advocating the re-introduction of Section 28 as part of a Loyalist League manifesto, and labelling the subsequent apology for the manifesto “weak”.

This comes after the Baron of Blackmore Vales appointment as LotHoL in a recent cabinet reshuffle which saw model-willem and model-mili demoted to ECC and HCLG Secretaries respectively, and the promotion of MatthewHinton12345 and new Tory up-and-comer Brookheimer to DefSec and Home Secretary. 

The comments in question were made during the last GE campaign, in the midst of the ill-fated LL manifesto row. The highly controversial manifesto contained promises to abolish devolution, establish sharia courts, end the use of puberty blockers for those under the age of 16 and re-introduce Section 28, a clause of the Local Government Act which stated

“shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.

In the debate of the manifesto itself, Jas1066 laid out his support for a few of very of those very controversial policies, including S28. Jas1066 said he “firmly supported” the abolition of devolution; as the Welsh Assembly “cost in the region of £300 million” and that this was too much for a “country as culturally similar to England as Wales”. He said there was a “better argument for devolution to Stormont” as “bullets and bombs can be rather persuasive”, and that while he believed Britain should have “stayed strong in the face of terrorist threat”, they should not “break our word to the Republic”, an apparent reference to the Good Friday Agreement and the peace process.

In reference to S28, Jas1066 cited LGBT History Month as evidence that “councils promote sexualities” and that LGBT families were a “pretended family relationship” and to treat LGBT families as family in the traditional sense was “folly”. Jas would go on to say that there was a “thin line between promoting the freedom to do something and promoting something”, in reference to a comment regarding councils promoting the freedom of people to be LGBT.

The manifesto would go on to see significant backlash, and the puberty blockers and S28 pledges were withdrawn and apologised for by the LL, however Jas1066 attacked said apology in a comment saying “Weak, Weak, Weak”.

The Tory move to merge with the National Unionist Party was a risky one, however for some time it appeared that the opposition had spared its fire on the issue. However, with the appointment of Jas to Cabinet, they have opened themselves to significant attack, and must now face questions about what views they are willing to tolerate in their party.

The LPUK Deputy Leader Seimer1234 said the comments were “deeply troubling”, and that “homophobia has absolutely no place in government. The justifications given to supporting S28, a discriminatory and bigoted piece of legislation, are weak and illfounded, as are the arguments for aboltion of devolution. The Leader of the Lords should consider their position.”

Labour, Lib Dems and Tories are yet to comment.

*Written by MatthewHinton12345, First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Defence*

Her Majesty’s Yacht Britannia, decommissioned in 1997 without replacement, was an invaluable national asset by any metric. Unarguably, it was a symbol of national pride. Its elegant blue and white paint job, festooned with union jacks and manned by sailors of the Royal Navy, made it a potent symbol of the United Kingdom’s enterprising and outgoing spirit, proactivity, global engagement and national self-confidence.  As the name would suggest, the Royal Yacht served primarily to convey our beloved Royal Family around the globe, not only strengthening the deep and special bonds we enjoy with our Commonwealth family but forging new partnerships with nations big and small.

However, Britannia’s magisterial name belied quite the profusion of functions. It doubled-up as a roving embassy, a venue for trade deals and other diplomatic agreements to be reached and acted as something of a national emblem, signifying Britain’s seafaring heritage and its unique status as the home of the world’s longest-reigning and prepotent monarch.

The politics of envy that have debased 21st Century public discourse, compounded by the base puerility of those who espouse the anti-monarchist regurgitations that belong in a sixth-form college, render talk of a successor vessel too controversial or unfashionable to embark on. Unfortunately for its detractors, the facts speak for themselves, with HMY Britannia travelling more than a million nautical miles around the globe during her four decades of service, and in doing so promoting British interests internationally and securing up to £3 billion for the Exchequer through drumming up deals for Britain in just four years.

It is clear that as we extricate ourselves from the insular and arid conglomerate that is the EU, we must be ready to burst back onto the world-stage with excitement, enthusiasm and poise. There would be no better way than to declare Britain open for business than to commission a spiritual successor to Her Majesty’s Yacht Britannia. This should be done in the form of two multipurpose, cost-effective and cutting-edge hybrid vessels funded jointly by the MoD, DfIT and DfID budgets, respectively. Such catalysts for inward investment would more than justify their existence even if their sole purpose were to function as HMY Britannia did, with their cost coming in at just under £300 million, less than a Type 31 Frigate. Yet, these vessels would undertake international development duties too.

These flexible ships would not only, therefore, serve British interests, but would act as workhorses for charity and humanitarianism, delivering aid, medicine and innovation to the countries that desperately need it. Beyond their construction, these ships could be creatively staffed with recruits from across the Commonwealth Realm, allowing the next generation of soldiers, sailors and pilots to accrue experience and opportunity on what would be ships of their own kind. More importantly, such an arrangement would see our militaries auspiciously link arms with key strategic partners like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, with the added bonus of adding to the prospective cost-effectiveness of this project. To burnish the thrifty credentials of Britannia 2.0, private business have displayed quite the eagerness to contribute to its funding, with proponents like The Baron Jones of Birmingham mooting innovative funding proposals, ranging from National Lottery involvement to scaled donations from export-facing companies. Senior Royal Navy figures are also seized of the benefits of a successor, to the extent the late Vice-Admiral Sir Donald Gosling reportedly bequeathed £50 million unto the project. 

During my tenure as Secretary of State for International Trade, I came to recognise the manifold arguments in favour of this bold and brilliant scheme. With the private sector clamouring to be involved, military consensus firmly behind the proposals and propitious noises coming from the aid sector, there is very little in the way of material obstacles to the concept of a new Royal Yacht. We must now seize the initiative and make the dream a reality, so that global Britain makes the splash it has the potential to.

Op-ed written by Shadow Cabinet Office Minister Maroiogog

We all remember the days of FPTP. 650 seats, each with its own MP representing the small-ish stretch of land. Love it or hate it our current 100 seat proportional mechanism has brought in all sorts of huge changes in the political landscape. The one I am about to talk about is one of the most minor ones, that is for sure, but still we should shed some light on it.

Something that always used to win votes back in the day were local issues. If you had a candidate which was from the local area and knew what residents struggled with and made sure to make noise about those same issues you were guaranteed a better result than expected.

This however appears to not be the case anymore, or at least not to the same extent. Independent candidates barely exist anymore, with just one standing last February. Politicians stand in many different seats back to back in different general elections and nobody seems to bat an eye. Half the house doesn’t even represent a precise constituency anymore, but rather very large areas of our country.

Could it be that the electorate simply is somewhat not interested in having a “good local MP” anymore? After all the current constituencies are often so large it is impossible for a single person to represent them in the same way they would’ve represented citizens of a town back in the day. How could one somewhat regularly canvass all areas of mid & west wales for example? Or the Highlands?

The implementation of the list seat system also brings new interesting dynamics. Firstly, each stretch of land is now represented by multiple people. The responsibility of raising concerns for specific areas now rests on many shoulders rather than just one, meaning the choice of each of those shoulders became a lot less important. The way voters behave has also changed: why reward a particularly good candidate with your constituency vote if they don’t have a realistic chance of winning if they can get in on the list anyway?

This leaves politicians with an easy choice: that to let go of the localism. And we can’t really blame them. The expectation to be able to remain as in touch with the locals as they once were is simply unrealistic with the new boundaries. Where once sat 650 minds writing legislation and taking up frontbench jobs now only 100 sit but with the same expectations placed upon them, they have a lot less time to wander around residential districts with canvassing boards or going to small events. 

This situation where being a “good local MP” has fewer benefits than under FPTP but has become somewhat harder though has very little to do with what citizens ideally want from politicians. The desire to be able to meet and talk to your local parliamentarian and the desire to have the needs of your local community discussed in parliament surely hasn’t suddenly vanished?

So, is there political potential in parties’ and candidates making a push to appeal more to those voters who may be driven more by local concerns rather than national policy? If we look at the last election we can see the independent model_trev gained 25% of the vote in Yorkshire South having practically no political experience. Model-amn achieved a similar feat in London South East. Both of them ran on very locally focused programmes and were rewarded, if they had the backing of some bigger party it is likely they would’ve either won their seats or achieved an even better result.

Given there still is some potential in localism, why aren’t parties bending over backwards to try and get a piece of the cake for themselves? Nobody can know for sure, and it is something which is most likely down to each candidate and how they decide to run their campaigns, but it is still bizarre nobody is exploiting this. The first party that ends its fixation with Westminster and whose MPs start to represent the areas which they represent will no doubt fare off well in the susquent election.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RhysDallen

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

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

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

Secretary_Salami

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

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

**Written by David Seimarsson, Editor in Chief of the Telegraph**

All data can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rjjtIjODBpg2yWHeBILyZzlNjmQGjteLIjnMsz-DhWk/edit?usp=sharing

Official polling conducted by the Telegraph in conjunction with the Electoral Commission, show that there has been a notable swing towards the LPUK, with the party having a serious shot at taking multiple Labour and Conservative held seats. The polls show some good news for Labour too, however the Tories have seen a retraction it appears from their GE results.

In Scotland, the seat of Lothian and Fife currently held by BHjr132, where the party got a majority of votes in the last election, brings concerning news. They have fallen to second place, with 23%, while Labour, who did not contest the seat last time, are out in front with 29%. The Tories and LPUK take third and fourth with 20% and 18.5% of the vote respectively. The Lib Dems benefited immensely last time out from the absence of a Labour and Conservative candidate in the seat,  however based on this polling face a significant threat from either a Blurple endorsed candidate or a Labour one.

North Yorkshire brings some good news for the incumbent Conservative Climate Change-Energy-Environment Secretary ReglarBulgarian, with the party out in front with 33% of the vote. In second is the LPUK, who did not stand here last time, with 23.1%, perhaps fuelled by the parties strong hold on several other Yorkshire constituencies. Labour are on third, with 22.9%. The polls bring further disappointing news for the Lib Dems and indeed for the DRF, who find themselves in fourth and fifth. The two parties came second and third last time out, however are now polling at just 11.5% and 6% each, as the public appear to move away from the smaller parties to the now “Big Three”. Should the Libertarians endorse the Conservatives again, this seat looks a safe bet, however if the LPUK are emboldened by these polls and run a challenger, the seat may be under some threat from Labour and the Libertarians.

In the LPUK heartlands of the South-East, Sussex appears to be solidifying into a safe seat for the party. The party, which won the traditionally marginal seat by just 10,000 votes last time around, has 33.4% of the vote, an 11 point average on second place Labour with 22.4%. The Tory support base here is 20%, while the LDs find themselves on a relatively strong 14.5%. The LPUK look to be in a strong position here, and a Conservative  endorsement would likely seal the seat for them. However, if the Tories were to run with possible LD backing, they could put up a challenge to LPUK MP captainrabbit2041.

Back in Yorkshire, Humberside brings similar good news for the LPUK. They’re on 30% of the vote here, ahead of second place Labour on 24%, Tories on 23% and the Lib Dems on 12%. Long time MP Nstano benefitted from the lacklustre Labour campaign here last time and won a significant majority. Tory backing will make this seat safe as houses, however a Conservative candidate could possibly put this seat into contention for the traditional major parties.

Glamorgan and Gwent, a Labour stronghold, doesn’t like to be going anywhere fast without a united right wing candidate. Labour, who won a large majority here last time out, are leading with 40%, with the Conservatives in second place with just 21%. The LPUK are on 18% with the LDs on 13%, and in a major shock, Plaid all the way down on 3%. Plaid came third here last time, receiving over 100,000 votes. These polls are a showcase of a party in deep crisis, as they crater in their strongholds of Yorkshire and the devolved nations.

The final area polled was Tyne and Wear, held by Tory Joecphilips, which has turned somewhat towards Labour and Libertarians according to this poll. The Tories got just 3,000 more votes here than Labour in the General Election, and just 13,000 more than the LPUK. The poll shows Labour well on top with 36%, the LPUK on 25.71% and the Tories on 25.21%. TPM are fourth with 5% and Lib Dems fifth with 4%. These numbers are a significant shock, with the Tories falling to third in their own constituency, and Labour surging into a 10 point lead. Its advantage Labour in this seat, which could be a bellwether for what’s shaping up to be a nationwide three horse race for Number 10. 

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

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

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

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

NeatSaucer

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

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

A Conservative spokesperson  told the Telegraph the following:

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

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

Yesterday evening, Labour Shadow Chancellor jgm0228 appointed former Chancellor of the Exchequer u/whatasadlifejane to the position of Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The appointee, who was described by Labour as having an “extensive history of economic knowledge”, has a long history in British politics, serving most recently as Leader of the People’s Action Party. However, in research conducted by the Telegraph, three old articles have been unearthed casting some doubt onto the credibility and character of the ShadCabs newest member.

The first article, published by “Zentith”, described the former Chancellor as a “terrorist sympathiser” who had been providing advice to the then Home Secretary. In the article they are quoted as describing democracy in the UK as “oppressive” and “illegitimate”. An article written by the former Chancellor is also quoted by Zentith. 

We found this article which is entitled “In Defence of Terror”. The article describes the democratic system of governance as “illegitimate” as it “tramples over those who disagree in pursuit of social consensus”. The article goes on to discuss the legitimacy of terrorism, which the author equates to voting for a party that wishes to abolish welfare, invading another country or the use of nuclear weapons. Terrorism is described as “political participation” by the writer, who finishes with this quite extreme quote

> If we are to encourage people to vote, encourage them to serve in the military, or even just to obey the law, then we must also encourage them to commit these acts of terror. Rather than denouncing these groups, they should be celebrated as bastions of liberty and free expression. These people are, in principle, the guardians of our embryonic society, and must, in principle, be an example for us to follow; not in ends, but in means. TERROR IS VIRTUE.

The final article found was one written by the Guardian. Included is a quote from the former Chancellor, who says that all crimes without a victim should be legalised, and goes on to include “supporting terrorism” among necrophilia, incest and polygamy. They also describe the government as the “largest supporter of terrorism in the UK”. 

The Shadow Chief Secretary whatasadlifejane gave the following quote

“ if you read the comments you’ll see I’m arguing that society is inconsistent because our government and institutions promote terrorism that favours them but not that which opposes them, so to be consistent it must either implicitly accept the legitimacy of terror regardless of backing, or refuse the legitimacy of all terror – which would include the use of force by the state to accomplish political objectives, something which we *need* for policing and basic law and order to function”

The Prime Minister yukub gave the following comments to the Telegraph 

“”While being quick to praise the “extensive experience” of their new Shadow Chief Secretary, they seem to glance over the blatantly unsavoury, harmful and dangerous views propagated by them. We hope Labour takes these comments into consideration when weighing up whether the individual in question should retain their post. Frankly, we feel that they should apologise and must explicitly denounce these views, resign from their front bench position and show appropriate regret. We call on Labour to stand strongly against support for terrorism and uphold British democracy.”

The LPUK Leader and Economic Spokesperson Friedmanite19 gave this comment to the Telegraph-

“The comments made by the new shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury are abhorrent and it’s shocking labour would appoint them to their frontbench. I’m hardly surprised when they keep stalin1953 on their frontbenches who talked about  the Satanic Verses and justify Iranian human rights abuses. It’s clear Labour can not be trusted with national security and this recent appointment shows they don’t take terrorism seriously”

Lib Dem Leader u/thechattyshow gave this comment to the Telegraph-

“This is a troubling statement from the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and one we reject wholly. Celebrating terrorist groups is an incredibly dangerous ideology and it’s worrying to see Labour promote people with this view.”

We reached out to Labour, and are awaiting a comment. The article will be updated when one is provided.

These quotes are without doubt, offensive and extremist. Describing terror as a virtue, calling for the legalization of the support of terror and saying it should be encouraged in our society, are perhaps some of the most shocking British politics has seen for quite some time. It also chimes squarely against the Labour attack on the Conservatives, for having two MPs who voted against a motion to “commemorate the 2015 Paris attacks”. While the Labour Leader has shown an unwillingness to move against members who make controversial comments, this may be a bridge too far.

*Written by David Seimarsson, Editor in Chief of the Telegraph*

Zentith article: https://www.reddit.com/r/MHOCPress/comments/57lpiw/home_secretary_labels_known_terrorist_sympathiser/

Guardian Article: https://www.reddit.com/r/ModelGuardianMHOC/comments/6hh5by/nps_uzoto888_being_called_out_for_controversial/

The Terror OP-ED:

Where next for Ukraine & NATO Relations? As President Trump’s state visit and a NATO summit looms, 3CommasClub the MP for Manchester North pushes for action.

In 1994 the UK, US, and Russia joined several Eastern European nations to sign the Budapest Memorandum. Specifically Ukraine pledged to give up their nuclear stockpile which at the time was the world’s third-largest arsenal of nuclear arms in exchange for a promise of respecting their sovereignty. In 2014, Russia openly violated the Memorandum by seizing Crimea from Ukraine and throwing their material support and manpower behind separatists in Eastern Ukraine. At the time the UK alongside our allies implemented sanctions on Russia to punish their actions and hopefully see a reversal in their policy. However, six years later Russia has not backed off. We have seen continued support for anti-Ukrainian forces with Russian arms and support flowing into the region. They have broken repeated attempts to broker a ceasefire through the Minsk agreements and have only increased the boldness of their actions. It’s time for the UK and NATO to act.

Since the invasion of Crimea in 2014, NATO and the UK have been supporting Ukraine with assistance both militarily and financially but we are not doing enough. We must send a strong message to Putin and the Kremlin and they cannot get away with violating a nation’s sovereignty and open invasion. Our response so far as been feeble and insignificant to truly make Putin ever reconsider his actions. Now with President Trump’s visit to the UK and the looming NATO summit, it is the perfect time for the UK to push the US and NATO to take further action to support Ukraine and defend European sovereignty. 

In the Donbas, the six-year-long war has turned into a standstill. Both sides deadlocked into a slog which neither can break. This suits Russia keeping a buffer they can control between Ukraine and their border. At any time they can ramp up their support and equipment flows into the region to inflict heavy casualties on the Ukrainian Army to put pressure on internal politics and punish them for seeking a foreign policy that Putin considers out of line. This situation is unacceptable and one of the reasons Ukraine cannot push back is the lack of proper aid. Russian backed separatists receive top of the line combat equipment from Russia. At times they received tanks and armored vehicles which outmatched anything Ukraine could field and they had little means to take out armored targets. The problem arises from the fact that most of the aid Ukraine gets from NATO and the US are non-lethal: equipment like radars or goggles not real combat equipment. Russia has no such restraints which have made the war an unfair affair. The UK through NATO must increase our supply of lethal aid through NATO. I am not advocating for arms that would seriously escalate the conflict but equipment that would allow Ukraine to match the firepower capability of what the separatists have received from Russia. 

Secondly, Ukraine is at the mercy of Russia for its economy. Ukraine is dependent upon Russian gas and oil to meet its domestic needs and depends on Russian oil transports to Europe for a major part of its revenues. This dependence means Ukraine falls victim to Russia who can threaten to cut the supply of oil and gas at any time. Previously, European nations have helped support Ukraine through trade and loans but more must be done. With a US-UK partnership we can help diversify their economy, open trade and support loans to fund Ukraine’s economy. This will be a mutually beneficial relationship that will increase the strength of Ukraine’s economy and bring trade to both the UK and the US.

Finally, there is the matter of Ukraine’s accession to NATO itself. In 1997 Ukraine signed a partnership agreement with NATO but since 2014 Ukraine’s need for NATO has been greater than ever. NATO maintains different support programs for Ukraine, but the UK must increase our funding and expand these programs. Also urgent is the need for further NATO-Ukraine training exercises for practical military readiness and to send a message to ward off future Russian aggression. Previously, American officials have expressed their willingness and openness to allowing Ukraine into NATO with the American ambassador stating her position on granting entry to both Ukraine and Georgia into NATO if the correct conditions were met. The UK should take a similar stance and welcome Ukraine into NATO with the full cooperation of the US. As President Trump crosses the Atlantic, now is the time to freely consider the entry of Ukraine into NATO.

As President Trump arrives in the UK and a NATO summit approaches, it is a once in a generation opportunity. Beyond the petty politics of who will attend the banquet is a greater forum with the opportune time for bold action. I urge the Foreign Secretary /u/InfernoPlato to think of the greater implications of security for Europe and move the UK and discuss these matters with the US. Push for greater aid and support to Ukraine, assist them financially, and even consider allowing Ukraine into NATO. These are not easy topics but chances like this for progress are rare. This summit could be a breakthrough that finally sends a message to Putin he cannot ignore. The fate of Ukraine and continued European peace hangs in the balance. 

/u/ThreeCommasClub is the LPUK MP for Manchester North.