Model Telegraph

EDIT: This interview was conducted before the collapse of the LAB-DRF-TPM and LPUK-LD coalition agreements.

LeChevalierMal-Fait and Markthemonkey888 are senior Libertarian Members of Parliament representing the constituencies of West Yorkshire and Black Country respectively. Both have a keen interest in defence policy and the welfare of service personnel – serving and former. We met in a popular coffee shop chain in Central London. As the House of Commons lies empty and the next government is negotiated (or not) we discuss the Armed Forces Covenant Bill.

Thank you both for making yourselves available. Let’s discuss the Armed Forces Covenant Bill. The Bill would see the appointment of a Commissioner to champion the Armed Forces but would also cast an Armed Forces Covenant in British law. Why is this necessary and why does this Bill deserve support?

The first point to make is that the covenant as it came into being in 2002 is voluntary. There are some groups like the MoD and the chain of command who take their responsibilities under the covenant very seriously. Some councils also do an excellent job but in other areas it’s very spotty.

To me it is wrong that access to support should be a postcode lottery. If you wear the uniform you should be entitled to the same support.

Finally as to why we need the convention in the first place, it’s a contract between the nation and those who protect and serve us.

They should be entitled to the same rights and standards of public service as anyone else, we need to ensure

LeChevalierMal-Fait

Your commitment to the Armed Forces is admirable. What do you make of Labour’s adoption of a policy to abolish the Trident nuclear deterrent?

It’s foolhardiness of the highest order, but don’t just take it from me. Just the other week I was talking to a veteran who had served extensively in West Germany in the 1970 when the USSR has a huge conventional lead, and he told me something that I found really profound.

He said he felt comfort from doing Chemical Biological Nuclear and Radiological defence drill.

And I asked him why? it felt morbid to me. But you see he told me that he felt comfort because it reminded him that the British nuclear deterrent was out there too. And that no matter what the intelligence reports he got about Soviet conventional superiority, he felt confident that deterrence would be maintained.

And just like that veteran could never have predicted the massive changes we have seen in the last fifty years.

We today have no idea what the next fifty years will look like. A British nuclear deterrent is a guarantee of peace and stability against any eventually.

LeChevalierMal-Fait

I think I made it rather clear in my whitepaper I wrote two terms ago. I am a strong supporter of trident and will remain so. [LeChevalierMal-Fait] and I are currently working with our friends and colleagues in parliament to ensure that Trident remains strong for the future. 

Markthemonkey888

We also find ourselves in a coalition forming period. With the speculation of a LAB-DRF-TPM coalition agreement all but secure do you believe it is likely Labour will return to Number 10? What are your personal thoughts of this coalition and does another viable government exist?

Of course I have some personal thoughts on it, but if we do see it and I remain doubtful, then I hope they will work across the house to help members of the armed forces community deal with the challenges they face on account of their service so that our service personnel can no longer face a higher risk of sexual assault than the general public, so that veterans are able to transition back to civilian life and get a good job and so that children of veterans are supported properly with the pastoral care that they need.

LeChevalierMal-Fait

Well, by the time I am answering this interview, that coalition deal sounds like it will be falling through. I think if any coalition with TPM in it is doom to fail. I don’t see how any party like Labour or the DRF, will scoop low enough as to work with people with the maturity and capabilities of a 15 year old, not to mention most of their policies being horrible for the national economy and interest. I think most likely we will see a tory minority government with the LPUK-ID in official opposition while labour goes to UO.

Markthemonkey888

Markthemonkey888 with the E-Cigarette Control and Regulation Bill and the Armed Forces Covenant Bill you’ve been on a legislation drive. Can we expect anything else from you for what remains of the term?

Yes! LeChevalierMal-Fait and I have been working hard, and you will see two or three more pieces from us before the coalition period ends!

Markthemonkey888

LeChevalierMal-Fait you are somewhat of a veteran of British politics if you don’t mind me saying so. You are also a former Conservative Member of Parliament, rising to the position of Deputy Leader. If I can ask what do you make of the recent Conservative Leadership election and the state of Conservative-Libertarian relations – having served in that government yourself.

The state of relations between the parties is to me puzzling. Under no rational leader should relations have been allowed to reach such a level.

When I left the deputy leaders office, the parties were working prosperously together in government. I have no doubt that they can again, but there certainly is a vacuum of trust.

I have hope that Yukub is the right choice to fix this, certainly I have only found him to be an honourable decent principled man in my experience.

LeChevalierMal-Fait

The Labour Party have been acting hysterically over social media for the last few days because, shock horror, the third largest party in this country would not sit silently whilst called racist and far-right. First I shall explore the so-called ‘far-right’ in the UK and across Europe, and then I shall tackle the claims raised by Labour on Nazi Germany.

The most famous far-right party in the UK is the BNP. Nick Griffin’s BNP  believed in the nationalisation of numerous industries and adopted protectionism into the party platform, thus firmly rejecting economic liberalism. The BNP has also called for the “subordination of the power of the City to the power of the government”. The BNP were heavy opponents of privatisation and used slogans such as “Public service, not corporate profit”. Now these are words you would expect to hear out of the Shadow Chancellors mouth. The BNP were firmly economically interventionist. The BNP, like most fascist parties, were collectivist in nature, and if anyone picks up the BNP manifesto or reads their economic policy, they will find it has far more in common with the Labour Party than the LPUK. The BNP claims “the other parties are enslaved to laissez-faire globalism”. Collectivism,nationalisation and intervention are the antithesis of our beliefs.

Looking over across the pond, Marine Le Penn is often labelled as ‘far-right’, and when you look at her economic platform, you once again see that it is interventionist. During the presidential campaign, Le Pen promised to maintain the 35-hour work week, lower the retirement age to 60, establish a purchasing-power bonus for people earning less than €1,500 per month, nationalise the highways and to reduce the price of gas, electricity and train journeys by 5 percent. She was an economic interventionist in comparison to Macron, who on the whole was an economic liberal. A common trend of far-right parties is to have heavily interventionist economic policies and to deny this fact is to display economic illiteracy.

Now, I will note I never compared the Labour Party to the Nazi party, but their MP’s and members are always looking for a strawman and another political point to score so they can virtue signal and stand on the moral high ground. Recently, a Labour member published a link claiming they were ‘educating’ me on Nazi economics. In short, it argued that the Nazis loved private property and launched a wave of privatisation, and therefore did not have a left wing economic programme.The privatisation was  “applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference,” as laid out in the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels.The Nazis instituted major public works projects such as the Autobahn, promised full employment, and dramatically increased government spending. Joseph Goebbels in a propaganda leaflet for the Nazis stated:

I can love Germany and hate capitalism. Not only can I, I must. Only the annihilation of a system of exploitation carries with it the core of the rebirth of our people.

Joseph Goebbels

The  Nazis were disdainful of capitalism. The Nazi government did not own the means of production in Germany, but they certainly controlled them. They set up control boards, cartels, and state-sponsored monopolies which they then carefully planned and regulated.

Private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis, the actual ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. It was the German government that decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid. Market exchange did not exist in Nazi Germany. 

The idea that the Nazis were some sort of free market cult is nonsense, and the idea that they were right wing economically is laughable.

The Nazis on the whole adopted Keynesian economic policy, with Keynes himself implicitly admiring their programme:

“[T]he theory of output as a whole, which is what the following book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a large measure of laissez-faire.”

John Maynard Keynes

Proto-Keynesians such as Joan Robinson claimed “Hitler found a cure to employment before Keynes was finished explaining it” Hitler adopted Keynesian economic policy. I would encourage people to read the 25 point plan of the national socialists in 1920 and tell me that they are somehow free market capitalists. Mussolini referred to the economics of John Maynard Keynes as a “useful introduction to fascist economics”, and he argued that fascism entirely agreed with Keynes, a statement clearly proven by the massive interventionist programme in fascist Italy, but for the purpose of time I won’t dive into that in this article.

Friederch Hayek was absolutely right when he described national socialism and socialism as having common routes in central planning and empowering the state over the individual. Labour are now on their high horses over their poorly put together article, which does not understand nuance and conveniently omits many facts and creates strawman arguments.

u/friedmanite19 is the Leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom and is the MP for Somerset and Bristol.

If you thought the Leader of The Opposition calling economic concerns about taking in thousands of refugees “far right” was as far low as Labour would go, then you would be deeply mistaken. In the recent Labour weekly magazine the member for Clydeside accused my party of having a program to “benefit white people” and accused us of being racist.

I as a proud immigrant will take no lectures from the metropolitan elite in the Labour Party, the LPUK has a diverse set of representatives from a range of backgrounds and the notion that we are racist is pure fantasy. For years we treated European migrants as above non european ones by having an open door to Europe but a different set of rules for everyone else. Someone from Germany who had equal skills to someone living in Pakistan would get in purely based on their nationality. Under a points based immigration system we would treat everyone equally based upon skill and would essentially apply what we have for non-EEA migrants to the EU, leading to a fair immigration system. 

The Labour Party proposed free movement for countries with ¾ of our GNI per capita which would have benefitted mainly white wealthy countries. The policy of having free movement for some and not having it for others is discriminatory. RedWolf clearly doesn’t have the slightest clue about his parties policies or the current migration system in the UK.

 He already embarrassed himself in the house of commons when talking about green belts as some massive boon to the environment when in fact much of the green belt is environmentally costly and protections could be put in place for land of environmental beauty. I can guarantee he has not read the member for Surrey’s brilliant white paper which abolished tier 1 and tier 2 visas, opening the UK up to talented workers from across the world. It unlike labour’s policies  treated people equally, ending the discriminatory immigration policy him and his fellow euro fanatics supported for years.

If this wasn’t enough,according to Redwolf apparently questioning the costing of a universal childcare programme and opposing over £30bn of taxpayer money going towards is “far-right” and makes you comparable to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s (let’s forget that the so called “far-right have more economic policy in common with Labour than they ever would with me and my party). Anyone who dares to question ARichTeaBiscuit and their hard left cult on the numbers is labelled as far-right. Point out that climate refugees do not fall within the scope of the Rome treaty? Far-right. Believe that we should have some control on immigration? Far-right. Believe that we should have a childcare similar that we had prior to 2018 or other countries like Norway or Spain? Far-right. 

The Labour Party, by allowing these views to be published are showing nothing but outright disrespect to those who suffered under fascist regimes and should be ashamed of themselves. I am confident that they won’t feel an inch of shame as they love to make virtue signals and paint anyone who dares oppose their fantasy economies as a facist. Labour are poisoning our politics and are spreading toxicity into political discourse in this country.

ARichTeaBiscuit and RedWolf may think they are entitled to the votes of minority groups but they can take it from me, that Labour do not speak for all immigrants and for a lot of hard working immigrant families such as mine. Many immigrants believe in Libertarian and conservative values and the LPUK are proud to stand up for immigrants who have come to this country, worked hard, contributed to our economy and we will defend them from the tax rises Labour has planned. Hard work and aspiration are values that many immigrant families hold and it’s a key factor why many of them vote for the LPUK. No doubt Labour will call them traitors for daring to vote for someone who disagrees with them. I would not be surprised if BAME right wing representatives were labelled as “tokens” by the Labour Party. They only care about minorities if it suits their agenda otherwise they could not care less.

In the same fashion that Labour feel entitled to the votes of minority groups, they feel entitled to Liberal Democrat support and if the Lib Dems dare not work with Labour they are painted as evil austerity or tory enablers. It is somewhat bizarre that Labour attacked the Lib Dems for working with my party on issues that the Lib Dems have compromised on before or indeed share values with us. I would note the Leader of the Liberal Democrats voted for our child care proposal, will Labour condemn him as far-right? With a Shadow Chancellor who wants to leave NATO and slash defence spending below 2% and a Labour Party that wants to abolish our nuclear deterrent I would argue that the Libertarians and Liberal Democrats have far more in common than the Lib Dems and Labour. Labour’s man in the treasury is a self proclaimed marxist, a man who is open about his desire for socialism, let’s be under no illusion that a Labour government is a threat to the liberal market economy that has existed for decades. It has never been more important for parties on the centre and centre-right to set aside their differences to prevent economic disaster. 

The Liberal Democrats are a party which descends from Gladstone, we share values on economic liberalism, free markets, free trade and free enterprise, do we disagree on some areas? Sure but we fundamentally agree on the economic system. When it comes to civil liberties or the green belt our parties share common ground. Labour are scared of a new alliance of economic liberalism which is willing to take its backward outdated regressive ideas head on. As always they throw around accusations of racism but I know many of my friends in the Liberal Democrats will not be swayed by Labour’s gutter politics, I have thoroughly enjoyed working with them and working in the national interest. 

This whole ongoing debacle shows how out of touch Labour are with the public and the working class,the LPUK are surging in the polls and my determination is unaltered. The LPUK will continue to fight Labour’s toxic brand of politics and push for common sense immigration and economic policy. It’s important we take them head on and dismantle their pathetic arguments and fallacies one by one.

/u/friedmanite19 is the Leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom and is the MP for Somerset and Bristol.

It was the spring of 2017. The Conservatives had just achieved a historic win in General Election 7, ousting years of left wing governance, and in its place forming a Conservative electoral legacy that would last years. From General Election 7 to 13, the Conservatives had cemented a polling and parliamentary advantage over all of their rivals. At some points it grew larger, such as during the first Blurple government. At other points, such as right after the Grand Coalition, it became smaller. But the lead was always there. For almost half of the time since General Election 1, the Conservatives have led in the polls and in the number of MPs. 

Until now.

For weeks, it had appeared that Labour was nipping at the Conservatives’ heels. After recovering from a brutal Sunrise government that stagnated their polling, Labour had struck back with high activity and closed the gap to a mere 3 percentage points, and this week, through delivering the striking blow of a Vote of No Confidence, Labour had accomplished what no left wing party since General Election 6 had done: surpass the Tories in public opinion polls. Such a result has sent shockwaves through the political class in Westminster, creating a new dynamic where two parties seriously vye for the goal of winning a plurality of seats, rather than the simple assumption of a Tory plurality consistently prevailing.

As the coalition formation period begins, another party has great cause to celebrate. In the middle of the last term, the LPUK had found itself licking its wounds. Its polling had dropped drastically, down to a mere 12 percent, and there were serious murmurs about whether the party could simply manage to stagnate, rather than keep declining. However, through an influx of activity on debating and new legislation, the party found itself on the upper hand, gaining its highest ever result in General Election 13, and cementing its gains throughout the term. As the polls from April 9-16 were released, they displayed record levels of support, and showed the LPUK coming within striking distance of the 20 percent range in polling where Labour and the Conservatives currently reside.

However, these major gains for Labour and the LPUK have come at a cost. The Conservatives who, at their height, held more than 40 seats, have now found themselves in the peculiar position of being second in a poll. Having had a generally negative trendline since the beginning of the term, the Tories now found that, rather than simply having a shrinking lead over Labour, it is Labour who have a lead over them. As the Conservative membership votes in the following days over who their next leader will be, one thing is certain. That new leader, following in the footsteps of Milli, must quickly find a way to reinvigorate the Conservatives, or face the prospect of major electoral consequences come August.

• 

Exclusive polling received by the Telegraph tell a story of a seemingly mixed bag for all parties.

Northumbria

Greens	0.52
Labour	26.70
Liberal Democrats	5.96
Conservatives	29.59
LPUK	24.43
LL	2.45
TPM	5.32
DRF	5.04

Northumbria a seat where the Conservatives held off a combative campaign from Labour and the LPUK but it looks like danger awaits once more. With Labour trailing 3 points and the LPUK 5, the Conservatives might be able to hold off Labour. However, if Labour manage to secure a endorsement from TPM and the Conservatives don’t manage one from the LPUK this seat could be in danger.

Buckinghamshire

Greens	0.39
Labour	11.13
Liberal Democrats	5.60
Conservatives	34.28
LPUK	40.22
LL	1.17
TPM	2.44
DRF	4.77

Buckinghamshire is a constituency where the LPUK deputy leader Seimer beat out the Conservatives and it looks like history might just repeat itself. With a weak Labour and LD, the LPUK hold a commanding 6 point lead over the Tories, victory for the Conservatives seems out of their grasp even with with support from the their Liberal friends. The voters here seem to be supporting the successful VONC brought by LPUK leader Friedmanite19 which has toppled the Conservative-LD government.

Nottinghamshire

Greens	0.68
Labour	37.80
Liberal Democrats	8.10
Conservatives	27.32
LPUK	14.98
LL	2.32
TPM	3.41
DRF	5.36

The Labour stronghold continues to hold firm with an impassible lead the Conservatives have been unable to make inroads to capturing this safe Labour seat. Unless they secure the support of the LPUK and the LD the Conservatives will not be able to overcome Labour and with relations strained no deal can be assured.

West London

Greens	0.64
Labour	27.89
Liberal Democrats	10.31
Conservatives	29.71
LPUK	12.19
LL	1.15
TPM	2.65
DRF	15.46

Last election in the battle between the DRF and the Tories, with endorsements the DRF leader ZanyDraco were able to dominate the race. If such a deal were to hold the DRF could fine for another victory but if one of their endorsements go the way of the the Tories or Labour seeing their polling decide to run all bets would be off and the DRF would be in for a beating.

Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

Greens	0.41
Labour	15.41
Liberal Democrats	14.97
Conservatives	33.36
LPUK	25.43
LL	1.35
TPM	3.29
DRF	6.05

The Liberal Democrats won this seat with a Labour endorsement in the face of a divided Conservative and LPUK. This time even if both the Tories and the LPUK run it will be close race for the Democrats and if the LPUK and Conservatives manage to reach then their doom seems to be spelled. It seems from this poll that the biggest loser of the VONC might be the Liberal Democrats and not the Tories.

Glamorgan and Gwent

Greens	0.54
Labour	43.37
Liberal Democrats	13.23
Conservatives	14.62
LPUK	15.99
LL	5.42
TPM	2.14
DRF	4.69

Once again Labour polling looks strong in their safe seats. In Labour country and home of heavy weight secretary-salami, the collapse of the government seems to have embolden Labour while cutting into Conservative support. A divided and poor polling will mean that Glamorgan and Gweent will be a lock-in for the party. Polling reveals a divided front for the parties with strong showing by both parties suggesting that for a future election it might be endorsements that play a end up playing the deciding factor in tipping key races.

What do a former school teacher, Rand Paul, and mediocre fish and chips chef have in common? They are just a few of the many faces running to be the next leader of the Conservative Party. The Conservative and Unionist Party has always been a monolith of British politics, holding sway at nearly every point in our nation’s history. However, in the coming days, the party will be tested like never before. The Tory-led government is facing a vote of no confidence with the entire opposition bench accusing the government of misleading Parliament and gross incompetence. Inside the party itself, things are not looking much better with PM Milli resigning and leaving the party without a central figure to lead. Whoever is elected will have big shoes to fill and the tremendous job of restoring the Conservatives back to their former glory. Today I sit down with some of the candidates in the race to see who just might be crowned leader of the Party and potentially win the keys to Number 10.

First, we have what many would call the front runner, the current Foreign Secretary and Deputy Leader, model-willem. When I sat down with Willem in his office in Westminster, he spoke with a determined tone despite being clearly exhausted with the business of Parliament. With an established position of leadership and a wide breadth of experience, it’s not hard to see why he’s currently polling ahead of the pack. However, Willem was recently at the heart of the Iran controversy that directly sparked the VONC. When questioned on his actions hit to his reputation he fired back responding “[I] and my party doesn’t agree with the concerns laid out specifically against me and we know that we acted in the best way possible.” An iron-willed stance that echoed the party line and the reasoning supported by most Consertative MPs.

Questioned about what ailed the party, Willem told me that the shift from a right-wing Tory-led government to the more centrist government was a cause for confusion as it left voters confused about what the party stood for and what the public was voting for. An interesting idea and perhaps a sign of even a bit of nostalgia in the party itself and Willem also expressed the need to reach out to other parties like the LPUK while maintaining their already good relations with Liberal Democrats. It seemed like under a Willem premiership more change would follow as she also hinted as the creating of internal party committees to give more voice to backbenchers.

When questioned about his temper and distractions, an criticism lobbied by his opponent Yukub. Willem has responded that his so temper to him was more of a passion and his mistakes were a learning opportunity. . When asked about the government failure in Wales, Willem blamed on his tendency to maybe trust people too much and try to see in the good in them. Finally when I pressed him on members picking between him and Yukub should pick him because of his greater experience in higher positions and ability work with other parties. Though certainly a formidable candidate, worries over his recent performance as Foreign Secretary and the collapse of his government in Wales could have some Tory insider taking a second at Willem.

The situation in Wales showed me that I can trust people a lot, maybe a bit too much and I always see the good in people. Those are important qualities for a leader in my opinion. Without those a leader gets locked up in his own bubble without letting people in and play their parts.

Model-Willem

Our second candidate is a rising star within the Party, none other than BrexitGlory. The political machine was full of energy and passion as we sat down in a local pub for the interview. Despite him being relativity young, his head was already a jungle of grey hair, a sign of stress to come if elected leader no doubt. BrexitGlory emphasized his activity in the commons and new approach as the solution to the party’s current dilemmas. His experience or lack thereof was not a concern in these trying times. He focused instead on his policy of opening up political connections across the spectrum, plans for reform, and increased technology. However when questioned about his statement expressing admiring Enoch Powell which has attracted criticism from those both in and outside of the Party-he dismissed the claims exclaiming: “What a boring question.”

What a boring question. People are free to select quotes out of context, that is their freedom, I can’t stop that!

BrexitGlory

His message to the Party was one of bringing new blood to the halls of CCHQ, highlighting his experience in getting backbenchers active and involved during his tenure as Secretary of Transport. I then asked him about his background which revealed that he worked in IT working his way up and the fact he could rip an apple in two with his bare hands.  As for his personal life, he was quick to tell me it was pretty boring. No worries, I reassured him not all of us can be Casanovas. 

The third candidate I had the pleasure of interviewing is an even newer face to the political arena /u/MerriluPutrid. I flew to her home in Birmingham where I had the pleasure of enjoying some freshly brewed tea and homemade biscuits. She told me that she previously ran a fish and chips shop but the food was just okay. Briefly serving as an MP the last term, her real start came when she elected MP for West Midlands the last election. A bit of curiosity she might be a bit of unknown to members of her own party and certainly to the wider political world. When asked what prompted her to run, she conveyed the need for a fresh perspective against what she saw as an increasingly radical Labour. 

My message to my party is that the way things are going at the moment, we may be sitting on the opposition benches soon. We need a fresh face who will help rally the British people towards the Conservative cause and work to mend our relations with smaller parties, while still not surrendering our core values.

MerrilyPutrid

Putrid sang a song of broad unity even as Westminster increasingly becomes more partisan. When asked why someone so new should be trusted with what may the keys to Number 10, she replied a fresh slate is what the party and the country united. The rest of the party and opposition had no reason to hate her, something that cannot be said about every candidate in the race. Though scant on implementable policy, she was in a position to be an alternative pick for those fed with the old guard. As I left Birmingham, I left with a portrait of a fresh-faced and strongly centrist candidate, perhaps the first of the Tory new guard stepping into greater power.

The next candidate I met was paul_rand, the Secretary of State for education. I interviewed on the eve of his manifesto release which was the longest of any candidates. What stood out to me the most was the personal promise of activity and plan for strengthening the Tory hold over devolved assembles a unique aspect of his manifesto.  When asked about his stance on the devolution debate he signaled that he felt that the current arrangement was fine but would like to formalize the transfers of power.

As for his detractors, especially in the LPUK he pointed to his manifesto of his broad-church ideals and willingness to across the aisle. Spoken like a man who had spent much time as a civil servant as Rand serviced in the civil service for HMRC in northern England. As for his final message to his party and the backbenchers he issued a call to arms.

As for my message for my own party and backbenchers, I am issuing a call to arms, I want everyone in this party to know that they have a place under my leadership, they serve a vital role and they will be needed in the fight we must wage to put our vision to the people.

Rand

The final candidate I interviewed was Yukub a old time member of the party and highly regarded in his right. For an seasoned politician, I dove straight into questioning. When asked why newer members should trust him, he responded saying that as a old face he was similar, trusted and with a long and proven track record. I then pivoted to what work he could point recently, given that opponent BrexitGlory had made his tremendous activity in the Commons a tenet of his campaign. Yukub discussed that his work was behind the scenes in writing legislation and in the press .

Yukub was quick to have me turn to his colleagues in the party who he assured would support his record and work. To be fair, many senior members of the party including several former Prime Ministers was endorsed Yukub. His message to the party was about concern about a dangerous Labour Party knocking at the door and not just him but the entire party needed to have a joint effort to maintain power and the trust of the people. In the days since he announced his candidacy, support has been building with Yukub securing many big name endorsements and the press shifting to call him the front-runner. It just might that his old dog can learn some new tricks.

For long, we have dominated the political scene. But we cannot afford to become complacent Labour are banging on the gates; they have their eyes on the prize — Number 10, Downing Street. . For those of us who where here, only some years ago, to experience the then left-wing hegemony, it is an particularly real and unpalatable thought. The country, more than ever, depends on us securing our position and holding Labour at bay. We must stand strong, stand together. I hope to have your confidence, and I can assure you it will be repaid, a thousandfold.

Yukub

To summarize, despite meeting many different candidates I picked up on a lot more in common than one would expect. Nearly all of the candidates spoke of unity that it might as well be a Tory bumper sticker. More interestingly all candidates seem interested in restoring relations with their old friends in the LPUK. Of course, only time will tell how much of this is campaign blusters versus actually policy. Similarly, it seems “One Nation Conservative” has become a buzzword in this election with nearly every candidate empathizing core conservative values. However, even though all candidates want unity inside the party maybe members tell me this election is about the soul of the party.

Tory backbenchers and senior officials I talked to spoke of this election and the future party leader charting the course for the party. Will the party move to the right, stay in the center or move on the left. Many spoke the move to move from working with the LPUK to pass more right-wing budget than working withe Liberal Democrats left the voters and party members puzzled on the goals and what course the party was charting for the country. Former Party leader PM, DrCaeserMD echoed this sentiment. Now more than ever the party needed a clear message and direction. In the days since he has endorsed Yukub in the election.

What’s clear is that the party has a very important choice ahead of it. We may not only be electing our next leader, but also our next prime minister. We can’t take this for granted.

DrCaeserMD

The main difference in this election boils down to the race between the old and new guard. Veteran politicians like Willem and Yukub are facing against new faces like BrexitGlory and Putrid. While they all want to bring their party forward they disagree on the methods to do see and how fast they need want to move. Unfortunately for the new guard while they have an abundance of energy, most members I talked depicted the race being between the front-runner Willem and decorated Yukub with rising star BrexitGlory finishing in third. The battle to watch this election will be between two experienced politicians while the BrexitGlory campaign hopes to turn heads in the party by gathering a significant base of support and hoping to pull off an upset by maybe upstaging one of the front runners.

Whoever wins this election, it is clear that a new group of Tories are making their way up and they want their wishes to be heeded. This leadership election is not so much about policy but more about who is the better person to achieve very similar goals all round. Only time will tell if the Conservatives will survive the VONC and who will be next to the Party.

Dark clouds gathered over the halls of Westminster last night as senior opposition leaders gathered to announce their joint motion for a Vote of No Confidence against the government. Now I will be the first to admit that clearly my party does not see eye to see with Labour on most policies but it is a testament to the missteps and failure of those in power when such rare cross-party support is thrown behind to unseat the government so early into their term. 

The very beginning of the Clegg Coalition was shrouded in controversy as they had the Queen misled the House in her speech. It seemed that the new government position on prescription charges was clear stating their support for them and insisting the only alternatives were cuts to the NHS or raising taxes on those already most vulnerable. No sooner had they proclaimed it in their Queen’s Speech when political convenience kicked in and they flip-flopped on their stance. Now with their bill to repeal charges passing the House, what option will they be pursuing, cutting the NHS’s vital services or raising taxes on the sick and elderly? I am sure neither option is attractive. 

However, one political issue is not enough to topple a government-the bigger concern is this government’s lack of accountability to the House and the public. Repeatedly, in questioning the government’s officials were more than happy to avoid questions they deemed too hard, of course, that is if they even bothered to show for them. Government ministers have shown distaste for any sort of scrutiny altogether by missing questioning time, perhaps by ducking into nearby pubs to avoid to avoid questions on various matter including the financial burden of their own prized pet project Ambercare. When a government cannot give clear answers on their key policies, that is a cause for concern. After being called out on such practices the government was happy to fire but the immediately reassign the offender to another cabinet position. They have turned the Commons and their own cabinet into a revolving door of negligence. 

The final nail in the coffin was none other than the disastrous handling of JCPOA talks with the Iran by the Foreign Secretary Model-willem. It came as a shock to every member of the opposition when we had to learn from the BBC that so close to the deadline for talks over the Iran deal that the Iranians were frustrated that no talks had been attempted by the Foreign Department. An Urgent Question was rushed to the floor to understand why a matter of such importance had been seemingly neglected. Under fire by every member of the opposition, the government kept insisting that talks had been started prior to the BBC report, and they had nothing wrong. 

When questioned again on what seemed at this point a clear lie, the Foreign Secretary refused to back down from his position, instead choosing to fire back accusing the LPUK of creating a crisis of their own making. Even after a plethora of criticism from myself and my fellow opposition MPs the goverment refusal to accept reality only continued to grow. Some Conservative MPs even jumped into the debate trying to save face by asking the Foreign Secretary to list his prior experience and insisting that the reason no talks had been started was that they didn’t want to rush them. This line of reasoning forgets that the little time left before the deadline meant any deal agreed to would be inherently rushed and Parliament would not have proper time to scrutinize it, but maybe that is exactly what the goverment wanted to once more avoid any and all scrutiny.  

I am sure alarm bells are already ringing in the Conservative Party HQ, with the Prime Minister resigning even before the VONC has gone through, perhaps a sign that defeat has already been signaled. Whatever the result of vote my hope is that we can return to a functioning government that is not above taking criticism and can restore the confidence of the Commons and British public. 

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

Markthemonkey888 is the constituency Member of Parliament for Black Country – the Westmidlands county synonymous with the industrial revolution. I met the veteran parliamentarian in a London bar known to be a favourite amongst the Libertarian caucus. Quiet, on a Monday afternoon, we discussed his career, both recent and past, and the political goings-on of the day over a glass of single malt.

Good evening. For the uninitiated, would you care to summarise your political career in as brief a manner as possible?

My name is Markthemonkey888, the current Member of Parliament for Black Country. I am currently the Defence Spokesperson for the LPUK, I’ve served in cabinet under the Tories in both DEFRA and Business and Innovation, and worked times in both whip offices.

Firstly allow me to ask about some of your most recent legislation. What is the motivation behind the E-Cigarette Control and Regulation Bill and do you expect it to recieve cross party support?

The first reason was a personal reason, I did quite a bit of reading into e-cigs a while back while using it to quit my nicotine addiction and found that it is severely under regulated and has minimum government control. It needs to be brought under control, especially when it concerns our youth. I’ve seen many kids in my constituency addicted to nicotine thanks to fruit flavoured vapes, a device meant to help adult smokers quit, is now helping our kids get addicted to nicotine. Since production, import, advertisement and sales of e-cigarette is not limited or regulated under the ​Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act of 2002, any company can abuse this and mass market e-cigs to our children and the general public.

I believe that the Bill is quite common sense and I should think that this is an important enough issue to receive support across the house. I would take a quick second to thank my friend LeChevalierMal-Fait who helped me with the legal and technical aspects of this Bill.

The Veterans Affairs Motion was read before the House of Commons yesterday. As its author do you believe the abolition of the Minister of State for Veterans Affairs is an indictment for the neglect of veterans? What would you see the government do to support former service personnel?

YES! Absolutely yes. I cannot state how important the office of veterans affairs was especially to me, helping me transition from military to civilian life. I believe that the Government [is] making a big mistake by abolishing the office. I also find it deeply troubling and disappointing that the comments made by the Secretary of State for Transport, who called the Office of Veterans affairs a “bloated” office. I am deeply saddened to see such language being used to describe the office which takes care of our veterans and I will be sending a letter to the cabinet office with my complaints.

I think the Tories need to reverse their decision on this matter immediately. I am also disappointed to see no new funding or innovation when it comes to this year’s budget for our veterans, as someone who has written the Defence and Veterans section of the Tory election manifesto before, this is deeply disappointing. I believe additional funding and resources should be allocated to the office.

You’ve long had a hand in defence policy. Do you believe the modern Armed Forces are fit for purpose? What reforms do you believe are necessary?

I think our army organization and structure is due for an update, we are due for army reforms this year anyways, so I will reserve my views until the government whitepaper.

I believe our armed forces are long due for an upgrade, the government hasn’t mentioned anything about a Defence review or a National Threat assessment that was due this term. I think we just need more of everything in order to keep up with today’s world. I believe a large investment in our armed forces needs to take place in order for us to be competitive again. We also need to upgrade and increase our global presence. We’ve already opened up a base east of Suez, but I think we need to take advantage of our other global facilities.

During your career you have found yourself in more than a single party, once an active member of the Conservative Party. How do you view your former party and its leader today?

Many are aware of my personal animosity and disagreements with the Prime Minister, but however I have no animosity towards most members of my former party, especially members like eelsmaj99 who I still look up to as someone who helped me and mentored me in my early days. I do however disagree with it’s leadership and its decisions. I no longer agree with the path which the Tories are traveling down. I believe they have lost their way.

As you have been and are a member of both the Conservative Party and the Libertarian Party you have an understanding of both. Are you confident both parties can reconcile in the near future? Would you support a return of Blurple?

I don’t think so. Not in it’s current state anyhow. The tories would need to drastically change their stance and leadership. I believe the Conservative – Classical Liberal merger has killed that possibility for the near future.

Okay thank you for your time. Is there anything else you want to mention?

I join my friends and colleagues in the house in calling for the resignation of the Foreign Secretary in light of recent events.

Opposition Leaders Friedmanite19 and ZanyDraco delivered a letter to number 10 in person in search for answer over the Universal Childcare bill, which as been described as a ‘Poison Pill’, intended to sink the Sunrise Government

In recent days the Government has come under fire for failing to answer two key questions over the budget. By far the most noteworthy question was an accusation that the Conservatives supported the Universal Childcare Bill as a ‘poison pill’ to worsen their fiscal position. The Prime Minister and Government have been silent on the matter, with some senior LPUK and DRF members accusing them of dodging the question at Prime Minister Questions and then ignoring the MP for South Yorkshire at the budget reading.

Conservative ministers have generally been absent from the budget debate with the Shadow Chancellor appearing to take the mantle when it comes to defending the Conservative-LibDem budget. Shadow Chancellor /u/jgm0228 was quick to defend the Conservatives arguing that AmberCare was not a ‘poison pill’, despite the former Conservative Deputy Leader and former Blurple Chancellor saying otherwise.  With former Conservative Deputy Leader, who was in the parties leadership, publishing an in-depth article describing the bill as having “Trojanesque intent”, the Shadow Chancellors robust defence of Conservative policy seems shaky at best. 

Conservative MP’s voted to rule out VAT rises last term, alongside ruling out a deficit. With this in mind, Universal Childcare has a hefty price tag and, there is no doubt it would have made life for the Sunrise budgetary team difficult, ending the budget before it had begun. 

Labour members such as the PootisPower have insisted it does not matter whether the bill was a ‘poison bill’, and that the intentions don’t matter as the bill is now receiving funding. Tory MP’s have remained extremely silent on the issue, sitting back and allowing the Official Opposition to bat for them, in an unprecedented approach to cross-party collaboration, which has seen the Labour Shadow Chancellor answer more budgetary questions for the Government than the Conservative Party itself.

If the bill is found to be a ‘poison pill’, this would be a huge revelation, meaning that a whole election campaign run by the Conservatives was built on somewhat of a terminological inexactitude and would highly undermine trust in the Conservatives all across the Country. Indeed, many commentators agree that it could be the biggest scandal of recent political times. The Conservatives silence highlights that it is a question they are highly uncomfortable with answering and, rumours have it, they want to avoid the question at least until they can ram the budget through the House of Commons.

Late last night the leaders of the LPUK and DRF walked down Downing Street and delivered a letter to the Prime Minister’s door step seeking an answer before the budget vote, they accused the Government of “holding parliament in contempt” and urged them to stop “avoiding scrutiny in the interests of our democracy”. After such a big gesture, the Prime Minister and Government will find it hard to be silent however if they do remain silent, it’s clear that the accusations must have an element of truth. Even if the Government does avoid this question once again, it’s clear that it won’t go away and will continue to be asked until the Government answers it.

An article in MCato also questioned the assumptions of the treasury arguing that there was a blackhole in the budget, and that Universal Childcare had been drastically undercosted. If true, the treasury will find themselves in a pickle, the chief secretary has taken great pride in this budget being accurate but it appears, like all budgets, this is in doubt. 

Concerns over the budget only add to the Government’s headaches with the recent Queen’s speech slip up and the Home Secretary breaking Cabinet Collective Responsibility. Whilst it’s clear that the Government has the votes in Parliament to deliver their drastically dishonest budget, their credibility is evaporating as they are engulfed by scandal after scandal. As each day passes without the PM answering key questions about Universal Childcare, the greater the pressure on the Government will increase.

/u/JellyCow99 has been accused of violating cabinet collective responsibility and contradicting government policy by refusing to explain the benefits of a points-based immigration system and sharing the view of the Shadow Minister for Equalities that such a system would “potentially cripple… [specialist] middle to low skilled industries”. The comments were made during Minister’s Questions on Sunday. The Home Secretary also described points-based immigration as “known for being” “racist”, “hard-right” and “xenophobic”. Finally, the Home Secretary dismissed the claim of the Culture Secretary “that a points-based immigration system is the best way to proceed.”

When approached by the Telegraph, the Home Secretary reiterated he “[does] not support points-based immigration” but did not feel he had broken collective cabinet responsibility. An unamed cabinet minister disagreed, when asked whether the Home Secretary had violated collective cabinet responsibility, they simply relied “yes”.

A Libertarian spokesperson told the Telegraph it was clear the Home Secretary supports an “unsustainable open door policy”, that the Conservative Party was “well aware of this fact before they appointed him [as Home Secretary]” and “he has clearly broken collective cabinet responsibility and should be dismissed.”

Collective cabinet responsibility is a constitutional convention that demands members of the cabinet must publicly support all decisions made in cabinet. Where a member openly objects to any such decision, they are obligated to resign. Collective cabinet responsibility is traditionally mandated by the Ministerial Code.

It is unclear whether The Government will suspend collective cabinet responsibility in this instance. The Government was approached for comment but did not respond.