Model Telegraph

Article written jointly by CommanderCody_2002 and cthulhuiscool2, Members of Parliament for South Yorkshire and Surrey respectively.

The Prime Minister has yet to respond to allegations of misleading parliament, by claiming the previous government reduced the budget of the Legal Aid Agency in the Queen’s Speech. In fact, the exact opposite was true. It is perhaps fitting that the speech intended to signal the direction of the government contained such a glaring mistake. More fitting still, that the government would adopt its head-in-the-sand approach to public accountability.

What amounted to a shambolic start to the life of this government, only grew worse when the budget was published on Wednesday. The last remnants of credibility in the Conservative Party were gone. The ever-shifting sands of Conservative policy are deserving of their own article, yet in embracing a hike in the burden of taxation and adopting deficit spending what can we say the Conservative Party stands for if not to maintain its pathetic grasp on power?

The Conservative party would do well to fear the article published by former Deputy Leader /u/LeChevalierMal-Fait, in which it is alleged the Universal Childcare Act was written with “Trojanesque intent”. Former Conservative Member of Parliament /u/Greejatus described the Act as a “poison pill”. The Conservative Party has so far failed to respond yet it is not hard to believe these accusations to be true, only the weapon intended to be used against the previous government has backfired spectacularly. Most ironic of all, perhaps, the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to be its victim now stands victorious as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Rather than pass a Sunrise budget under the premiership of Labour, he will pass a Sunrise budget under a Conservative government with the very blessing of those Conservative members who so vocally opposed his policies just a few months ago.

Furthermore, in the very same article, the former Conservative Deputy Leader alleges the existence of a malicious internal pressure group with immense powers “I feel increasingly worried that the group responsible for the dirty tricks is now not only still in senior positions of government but in such positions unrestrained by upstanding people like SirToast.” Hinting at the continued existence of the infamous “Bullingdon Club” and its continued stranglehold over Conservative leadership and by extension, the Prime Minister.

Internal Tory issues aside however the Prime Minister is potentially facing other issues surrounding the Universal Childcare Act. Due to the program’s expansive nature, it is likely that the currently allocated £30 billion allocated to the program may not be nearly enough to properly fund it. With other sources indicating that the program will cost between £50 and £65 billion per annum to operate. Yet another budgetary blunder made by the Prime Ministers team is the lack of inclusion of Welsh income tax in the budget, effectively imposing austerity on Wales. All this, despite a Conservative First Minister who also sits in the cabinet as Foreign Secretary, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury having also served as Welsh Finance Minister. 

The budgetary issues don’t end here as the Conservative-Liberal Treasury team may have broken the Climate Change Act by setting the carbon tax at 60 instead of the 80 pounds per tonne recommended by a climate change commission potentially committing an act of ultra vires before the British Parliament and undercutting the previous “Blurple” government’s efforts against climate change. A government which conversely the Conservative were a part of.

These blunders are only exacerbated by the lack of transparency and communication from the Conservative party and their junior partners as shown by the Prime Minister’s sudden absence from PMQs and his sudden substitution by the Former Classical Liberal Foreign Secretary and now Tory Deputy Leader – model-Willem who ended up answering the questions intended for the PM at the last moment. The Prime Minister and his replacement also conveniently failed to answer the question regarding whether “Ambercare” was intended as a trap.

The government’s abysmal performance and behaviour towards other parties leave much to be desired, however, it is ultimately a minority government whose success greatly depends on cooperation with the very parties it has chosen to alienate…..

Earlier today the EU published it’s negotiation directives, along with a note from chief negotiator Michel Barnier. Thankfully, the Telegraph has done the reading and identified the main points of what will shape the future relationship. The UK negotiation directives remain unpublished (or more likely, under construction) but the government’s position can be somewhat interpreted by the (unconfirmed) leaked coalition deal and the Conservative manifesto; both of which are remarkably vague.

Governance

The EU negotiation directives are clear throughout that the envisioned partnership should be wrapped up into one deal. EU negotiators are keen to avoid another Switzerland scenario of ad hoc deals, one they have been working on remedying. The UK should not accept this demand outright and should be cautious of how it gives the EU the ability to punish the UK throughout the agreement, using a framework-wide dispute settlement. The EU does however admit that “supplementary” deals are likely to be needed as well as periodic review.

Level playing field

The directives pretty much start by emphasising how important a “level playing field” (LPF) is to the EU. The EU seeks to “uphold corresponding high levels of protection over time”. If the UK wants free access to the Single Market, then it will no be allowed to undercut the competition within the EU. This will include state aid rules, environmental regulations and worker’s rights. The LPF is likely to be an area of contention as Eurosceptic Conservatives would prefer the UK to have the ability to diverge from these standards, as well as not wanting direct ECJ oversight in the UK. It also puts into question if the UK has honoured the Single Market referendum if it ends up taking too many of it’s regulations. That being said, the Eurosceptics are likely to have to budge somewhat if the Government wants “as much access as possible” as cited in the leaked coalition deal.

Given that the UK consistently spends less on state aid than Germany, France and Spain, as well as often having stronger worker’s rights; disputes of this kind could be few and far between. There is certainly a landing zone here for an EU-UK FTA; more on this later.

Regulatory alignment

After the SM referendum, and the general direction of what the UK wants, the EU seems to not be expecting the government to agree to it’s regulations. There will have to be a regulatory border, for things like product standards, between the EU and the UK.

However, there may be some regulations that the EU insist on more such as animal products. If the UK wishes to import animal products from the United States in a post brexit trade deal, this may make trading difficult with the EU. On the other hand, the UK may well be happy to accept the maintenance of current standards, but will again be sceptical of direct ECJ intervention.

Fisheries

There is no doubt that fishing rights in UK waters will be a big issue in the upcoming negotiations. The EU is demanding that fisheries are included in the wider framework of the deal, the amount of access to UK waters maintained with their long term access guaranteed from the start. This would not be a wise thing for the British negotiations to allow on a whim. The EU has many communities that rely on fishing in UK waters, especially in the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. Currently the EU fishes around 60% of the fish caught in British waters, it is not something they want to give up.

However, UK negotiators will be mistaken if they think they have a lot to gain here. Fishing makes up for 0.1% of the British economy and while that could grow, the UK also exports 80% of it’s catches to the EU. While British negotiators should seek to take back our sovereignty over our waters, if we shut the EU out we will face retaliation tariffs on the extra catch; or we will have to start eating lots of fish we don’t normally eat.

Where is the landing zone?

There are plenty of other parts to this deal, from defence cooperation to transport, from energy to data. All of these are important and will be subjects to further telegraph pieces. The above parts of the deal are the areas that will define the future trading relationship. A landing zone on this is certainly possible, but must take in key premises: both sides want to remove tariffs, the UK wants to retain sovereignty from the ECJ and the EU wants to protect itself from being undercut now or in the future, especially on state aid.

Throughout the directives the EU put emphasis on the “geographic proximity” of the UK, which explains why they are more insistent on the LPF than they were with the CFTA with Canada. One way to get around this would be for the EU to leave some tariffs in place, as they did with Canada, especially their more sensitive ones. The UK could then deviate from the LPF but not undercut the EU as the most sensitive tariffs would remain on places. This option is far from ideal however but negotiators will have it in their back pocket if talks of greater ambition break down. The tariffs that the EU is most sensitive about are often animal products, that the UK exports to the EU in great numbers. And again, due to the “geographic proximity” tariffs that the EU felt it could forgo with Canada, may need to remain in place with the UK.

A more ambitious option would involve the EU moving off of its red lines (as it already knows) on the LPF. On environment and labour laws this is somewhat easier. The EU mostly wants overall standards not to fall, the UK can claim it has gotten it’s sovereignty back (on something they don’t wish to change much anyway) if they can change individual regulations.

On state aid the EU directives are more strict, stating: “The envisaged partnership should ensure the application of Union State aid rules to and in the United Kingdom.”. This poses a particular problem for the UK as it will be direct EU control and ECJ ruling in the UK. There is no easy solution to this other than some sort of mechanism to keep within broader limits of EU state aid rules, without direct ECJ rulings. The EU must recognise that direct ECJ ruling in the UK is not going to be acceptable. Both sides will have to move of their red lines on state aid, especially the UK.

UK negotiators would be wise to be accepting of whatever dispute resolution mechanism arises, which will likely have some involvement of the ECJ. At the same time, the EU directives talk of “remedies” when referring to unfair competition. The EU will want to have trade defense mechanisms alongside the dispute resolution. So if the UK unfairly subsidises an industry that affects trade with the EU, then they can put in retaliatory measures to balance it out. These mechanisms will allow for the UK to regain it’s sovereignty, while not having to be subject to EU rules in areas that do not affect the EU. From the EU’s perspective, the threat of a laissez-fair international trading tycoon off the English channel is somewhat neutralised.

On fisheries the British negotiators would be foolish to so easily give in to the EU’s total demands. The British should instead look to regain total sovereignty, but be aware of the likely compromise that they will have to guarantee something. Most likely, there would be an agreed amount of minimum EU access that is less than their amount of access now. The EU wants to make any access guarantee permanent in the framework of the deal, this is not something the UK should accept unless the EU compromises heavily elsewhere (which they will not do, nor should they). Instead the two sides could agree with annual negotiations on the actual access limit, with that minimum access hard wired into the deal. This will allow the UK to have sovereignty and control, while the EU’s fishing can continue disrupted.

This is ambitious and there is little time to do this. It’s impossible to say where these negotiations will end, especially with the UK negotiation directives still secret. Much of the final landing zone will be decided by the next government. A wise government now would not wait to get to the negotiating table and angle the negotiations towards their vision for brexit, withholding key cards such as defence and security, alongside enacting vigorous preparations in every government department for a no-deal exit. The British negotiation directives

BrexitGlory is a political pundit and journalist, specialising in Labour party politics and the Brexit negotiations.

In yet another challenge for Labour’s new leadership (election loss fallout, leaks and coalition deal failure being the others), the nationalist SNP has bizarrely, yet successfully, merged into the unionist Labour. This will likely cause internal party tensions between the staunch unionists and the new (and old) nationalist members. The SNP were criticised for betraying the independence movement, and leaving it with no representation. Now, an unlikely hero has stepped up in the name of The People’s Movement.

The People’s Movement were part of the SNP but rejected the merger into Labour and have now formed Sinn Fhèin. In a launch statement the party stated:

“We are maintaining our principles of libertarian socialism, the abolishment of hierarchies, and a commitment to the right of self-determination which will ensure better lives for the people of Scotland.”

Reaffirming themselves as a nationalist party. The full launch statement can be found here: Sinn Fhèin launch statement.

The merger leaves just one MSP in a nationalist party, /u/14derry, taking the full burden of representing Scottish nationalists that the SNP abandoned. The MP made the following statement to the Telegraph:

“I’m happy that I’m able to continue representing my constituents, but it’s a bit daunting to be faced with the realisation that I will be the only MSP able to effectively criticise the union and how it’s failing Scotland. I understand why my former SNP colleagues made the decision they did, but I’m very concerned that the Labour party will stifle their voices when it comes to the constitutional settlement. Sinn Fhèin would be happy to accept any former member of the SNP who wants to make themselves heard, as we have already accepted former First Minister mg9500.”

Notably, the MSP has called for defections of former away from Labour. This may not be out of the realms of possibility as reports of tensions rising in Labour, with socially conservative and unionist members rallying together against the SNP insurgence. The ex-SNP members may find a friendlier space in TPM and Sinn Fhèin, whose national party is not explicitly unionist. The Telegraph will be investigating these reports further in the coming weeks, as the post-merger fallout could be more dramatic than the creation of the cabinet.

BrexitGlory is a political pundit and report active in Westminster and Holyrood. For tips, leaks and information please reach out to: Klobucharge#0830

Commander_Cody2002 is a Libertarian political pundit involved in Westminster politics

In 2010 the first full coalition government since the Second World War was formed, consisting of the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg and Tories under David Cameron. A coalition that may be considered controversial by some set a precedent that forever changed the British political landscape and it appears that the coalition may indeed be back.

At approximately 1 pm the Telegraph received the proposed Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition agreement, which can be found here. Overall the distribution of the offices of state appears to mimic the second Blurple agreement with the Conservatives receiving Lion’s share of cabinet posts as expected and retaining all but 1 great office, with the Liberals receiving the home Office, Defence, Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a handful of other primarily junior cabinet posts.

In general, the Policies of the “Daffodil” agreement appear to be a reasonable middle ground between long-standing Liberal Democrat policies such as the skills-wallet and the merger of income tax with national insurance and this election’s Tory manifesto policies such as the maintenance of HS2, “Ambercare” et al.

Of particular note however are the government’s Brexit and immigration policies , with the government committing to “Points-based immigration with a commitment to being liberal & pro-migration. Ensure that the points-based system developed doesn’t discriminate against migrants from poorer countries (i.e. contextualizing accomplishments)”.  Such a vague approach appears to emulate the immigration proposal laid out in the Club-Tory merger earlier this year and in all likelihood is likely to leave both sides somewhat discontent, especially former UKIP members present in the Tory party.

The coalition’s Brexit policy is perhaps best described by the document itself “Negotiate throughout the term a baseline for a future arrangement, seeking to gain as much access to the EU as possible whilst retaining the ability to leverage our markets and our ability to diverge. This baseline will allow a future government in August to make the final decision”. Once again the policy appears rather vague and it seems that the Conservatives wish to defer the final Brexit decision until August, hinting at the possibility of a new coalition partner down the road.

Another interesting aspect of the agreement is the Treasury policy, which is primarily centered around reversing the previous “People’s budget” and restructuring the Taxation system away from the Carbon and Land Value Taxes to the VAT and Income tax. This would be achieved by cutting the LVT and Carbon tax, implementing Pollution Profits and Nitrate Pollution Levies and raising both the value-added tax and income tax. The specific VAT policy may be a rather unpleasant surprise to many long-time conservative and Liberal voters, but the increase will probably be off-set by the cuts to the Carbon tax.

All in all the leaked agreement appears to confirm earlier rumors about the possibility of a new Conservative-Liberal coalition and lays out a moderate if not slightly vague vision for the United Kingdom going forward, time will only tell however if the membership of the  Liberal Democrats shares this vision and whether they may not choose another path such as a possible Labour or Libertarian coalition.

A mirrored copy of the agreement is available here as well

STV SPREADSHEET

In a race that could have delivered a shock or two, Labour members instead backed two figures who are widely seen as establishment. Sam is ex-leader and ex-deputy leader and offered little in their manifesto in terms of reform, but is a trusted and experienced member, who has already demonstrated their ability as a unity candidate.

Youma’s manifesto was also lacking in reform, in comparison to the likes of HKNorman’s and ChairmanMeeseeks’. Youma has a good track record however, turning around Scottish Labour and bringing them back up the polls. Youma’s manifesto consisted almost entirely of the idea that they would serve as “devolved deputy”, focusing their efforts on the devolved assemblies. It is no surprise that this was a popular idea given the current Conservative domination of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

It is no surprise that candidates: Lady_aya, David_johansson, Rinarchy and Butterlands were knocked out in the early rounds. Pootis’ bid that focused on the election failure was rejected in the first round, though many of his ideas were carried by other candidates, notably his ally HKNorman. Interestingly it seems HKNorman’s endorsement of Pootis wasn’t necessarily reciprocated, as Pootis’ vote for themselves (we can assume), was then transferred to Rinarchy, not HKNorman. Will the fallout from the result break their de facto alliance?

Captainographer lasted to an impressive round 6 before being knocked out, followed by Trongle who suffered from having the wrong views on the monarchy and the union. Both of these candidates received strong support in the first round of voting, but failed to reach across the broad tent to gather second and third preferences. ChairmanMeeseeks met a similar fate, gathering 5 votes in first round, second only to Youma, but failing to get more until the eighth round and getting knocked out. Perhaps their idea of mandated education videos to be distributed by the whips wasn’t an attractive idea?

HKNorman came incredibly close, coming in at third and just behind Sam. This result is likely to cause fresh tensions as the outspoken frontbencher has more grass roots support behind them, and is known to criticise Labour from within. One Labour member said that HKNorman was a “suspicious” individual. HKNorman is also a controversial figure due to their outspoken anti-British separatism, putting them at odds with more traditional Labour members such as Trongle.

The newly elected deputies, especially Youma, will have the immediate challenge of navigating the SNP merger that is expected to succeed. Not to mention the party is still suffering post-election blues, with many members doubting the leadership’s ability to deliver victory in the summer. Failed reformist outsiders HKNorman and ChairmanMeeseeks may be in a position where they get to say “I told you so”, come summer.

Got tips, leaks or off the record thoughts? DM BrexitGlory on Discord at: Kloburcharge#0830

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

Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing I would like to see more than the Scottish Nationalists being crushed under the comparative might of Labour, their cause swallowed up by an old and overgrown beast, but this merger will snuff out the much needed representation of the Gaelic identity.

Already Labour members have started campaigning for continued unionism. In a letter penned to a local paper /u/Drunk_King_Robert said:

“I wish to contend that the breakup of the United Kingdom, far from a goal we should be striving for, in reality represents the greatest setback for the cause of British Socialism.”

Are the SNP kidding themselves or are they just cowardly? Do they really think Labour value the long and proud history of Scotland over their brand of English Socialism? Ex-Labour leader, and likely next deputy leader, Sam-irl penned a response simply saying:

“No”

Can anyone in the SNP justify why, just why, the senior Labour figure would give such a lazy an uninspired response to another member attack the nationalist cause? Perhaps they don’t actually care? The only thing Labour has ever cared about is beating the tories, not Scottish nationalism.

Make no mistake, with this merger, proper Scottish nationalism dies. Labour will immediately abandon the Scottish people once they have ceded their vote to the red machine. Labour quivers at the thought of taking a stance on anything, especially on the union, because they know they will be attacked. If the small and merry band of jolly fighters that is the SNP, think they can take down the Labour leadership over an issue that would threaten the national campaign, think again.

“a Labour government can deliver on the promises of British Socialism…The UK is our country, and we ought to love it.” -/u/drunk_king_robert

This is all Labour care about, and the SNP are nothing but cowards if they submit to a party that is so cowardly it can’t take a stance, let alone the one of the SNP.

The SNP should stand up for what they believe in for goodness sake, are they William Wallaces or whimpering wannabes? SNP, I say you, do not go gentle into that good night.

DM BrexitGlory on discord at Kloburcharge#0830 to give tips, leaks and gossip.

That’s Kloburcharge#0830.

Earlier this week the Labour Deputy Leader election heated up again as incumbent DL, Maroiogog, resigned from their post. The resignation leaves two open spots to the eleven candidates, a mix of familiar faces and rising stars. This paper has obtained the names of all the candidates and all their manifestos. The manifestos are linked and are given short breakdown and a rating, the ratings do not take into account commons policy of ideology. In order of estimated perceived political heavy-weightness they are:

Sam-irl

Aims: More press activity and will work to foster a friendly and fun environment.

Bid in a nutshell: Experienced, dedicated, unifies party and wants to serve again.

Manifesto rating: A 6.5/10. Nice, brief and friendly but lacks real reforms and aims. +1 for the pun at the start and +1 for the BrexitGlory reference.

HKNORMAN

Aims: Democratise party decisions, more transparency and make press more “aggressive” with “spin tactics” (the Telegraph does not approve of dishonest press). HK admitted he would move towards what they called “gutter politics”.

Bid in a nutshell: Experience in all things but leadership, will represent grass roots in leadership and make the party open to members.

Manifesto rating: A solid 8.5/10. Well designed, unique bid for leadership, +1 for BrexitGlory mention.

Trongle

Bid in a nutshell: Experienced and blue Labour.
Manifesto rating: A decent 7. Clearly outlines objectives and how they will be achieved. +1 for having no shame in being blue.

Youma

Click here to open Youma’s manifesto.

Experience: Scottish Labour leader.

Achievements: Merging with SNP.

Aims: Make DL position in charge of all three areas of devolution.

Bid in a nutshell: Focus more on devolution.

Manifesto rating: eh, I will give it a 5/10. No graphics or design. Not much to it. DL for devo is an interesting proposal.

Thepootispower

Click here to open Pootis’ manifesto.

Experience: Labour front bencher.

Achievements: None mentioned in the manifesto.

Aims: More press, reactive legislation tracking, analysis of election results and form a better strategy.

Bid in a nutshell: Was very very sad at the election result and wants to do better.

Manifesto rating: A solid 8/10. Lot’s of focus on what actually went wrong for labour, including the recognition of TPM denying them seats. +1 for BrexitGlory mention.

Chairman Meeseeks

Click here to open CM’s manifesto.

Experience: Courageous survivor of Sunrise coalition rooms.

Achievements:

Aims: I counted a whopping 16 different reforms and ideas to improve the party. From creating a PLP chair to creating an election stockpile of national camapign events. CM has lots of ideas but some were rather lackluster and uninspired.

Bid in a nutshell: Similar to HKNorman, ChairmanMeeseeks has presented themselves as experienced in the rank and file but an outsider of the leadership contest. Is there space for both of these candidates, or will Labour members back the experience of candidates like Sam?

Manifesto rating: The best of the bunch. 9/10. Good focus on real systematic reforms that have the potential to really help the party. CM is allegedly favoured by Labour leader Akko and prominent backbencher JGM. +1 for focusing on giving us information on ideological views, -1 for views being Trotskyist.

Captainographer

Click here to open Captainographer’s manifesto.

Experience: Current labour press officer and used to be the “real” Secretary for the DfiD.

Achievements: Active campaigner and led a landslide in their constituency.

Aims: Get new members debating to raise polls and ally with TPM, the DRF and the Lib dems. (The later one is already been done.)

Bid in a nutshell: Quite similar to Pootis’, in that their bid is based off of the disappointing election result and outlining how they would do better.

Manifesto rating: 6/10. Standard, not many real reforms and mostly politician talk; something that Labour politicians will likely see through.

Butterlands

Click here to open Butterlands’ manifesto.

Experience: Elected as an MP but no other party positions.

Achievements: Becoming minister of State for Climate Change, but no relevant policy passed is cited in the manifesto.

Aims: Better coordination of visit posts, strong relationships with left wing parties and updating labour records.

Bid in a nutshell: Long-time Labour member and helper but never had a party position, and would be a fresh face.

Manifesto rating: 6.5/10. No graphics and pretty standard, probably correct about the visit posts. A good bid from a less-prominent member. +0.5 for liking admin work.

David

Click here to open David’s manifesto.

Experience: Not a lot, but that is ok.

Achievements: Ran a huge campaign in Cambridgeshire and turned a Conservative safe seat into a marginal.

Aims: Very vague and no real solutions to anything, including “keeping the praty together” and going for a “landslide strategy”.


Bid in a nutshell: Talking points.

Manifesto rating: 3/10. Not really a manifesto, more of a photoshoot. Doing it as a slide show is a good idea, but Labour needs solutions and strategy. (-1 for Blair facesteal)

Rinarchy

Click here to open Rinarchy’s manifesto. [M: A page has been removed to sidestep the self-dox, it included irl experience of things and how it could be applied to mhoc.]

Experience: Little politics experience but did mention out of politics experience and what that could bring to the table.

Achievements: Again, not a lot in politics but instead in business and outside of Westminster.

Aims: Incentivise/gamify activity, analyze the election loss in depth and prepare for the next election now.

Bid in a nutshell: While new to Westminster and new to Labour, they still brought a unique perspective to the party.

Manifesto rating: 8/10. This was a really good effort from a rising star who has a lot to give, nice graphics and design and some good ideas. They did a good job of having a relatively unique bid while not having much politics experience. +1 for inserted humour.

Analysis

Unfortunately with such a crowded race, the lesser-knowns and newbies: Butterlands, David and Rinarchy, are not likely to get far despite their good effort. Lady_Aya is also running but apparently failed to answer direct questions in hustings and did not submit a manifesto, so is also unlikely to get places.

Captainographer, the current press officer, is also not expected to be a close contestant with the crowded race. It is unclear how Labour member’s feel about his success as press chief, with multiple manifestos recognising the need for change in strategy at least to keep up with Conservative party press.

With there being two spots up for grabs, members may be more inclined to take a risk with a rising star rather than just voting for the most experienced member. Add to that the fact that members are still in mourning over the election, members are ready for change. Candidates like Pootis, Chairman Meeseeks and HKNorman, are fighting out for this unique opening in the deputy leader spectrum. All three have offered substantial solutions to the party’s issues, Pootis in particular criticising the election failure in detail.

Members with lots of leadership experience; Sam, Trongle and Youma, could be feeling threatened by the above as they themselves offer little to the table in reforms. Trongle could also find themselves victim to having the wrong ideology, where as Sam has consistently positioned themselves as a unity candidate.

While it is said that Akko and prominent backbench JGM favour Chairman Meeseeks and their plurality of ideas, HKNorman is said to be backing Pootis as his second choice for deputy leader to form a rival alliance.

Labour members took to the polls earlier today to cast their votes after attending hustings. An unofficial exit poll put the race too close to call, but favoured: Sam, HKNorman and Chairman Meeseeks.

BrexitGlory is a political pundit, analyst and journalist active in Westminster and Holyrood. For inquiries, tips and leaks: Klobucharge#0830

During the healthcare questions session in Holyrood earlier this week JGM asked a question where he claimed ending prescription fees in Scotland was Labour’s doing. This is not true as the SNP abolished prescription charges almost a decade ago in 2011. Upon hearing this the SNP leader broke protocol, by answering before the minister, and corrected JGM.

It was JGM’s reply to this however that really infuriated the SNP leader. JGM revealed that there was in fact a merger vote going on between the two parties, saying that he would be able to take credit for the SNP’s hard won past achievements.

In an attempt to cover his tracks, after realising the blunder, JGM tried to delete the comment from the records. The Telegraph has nonetheless obtained the evidence of the merger.

The blunder is said to have drawn significant SNP ire and discontent, especially as their achievements were being claimed to be Labour’s; something that is entirely and factually wrong. It is unknown whether JGM’s antics will sabotage the merger or not.

The merger is especially controversial for Labour who consistently claim to be either unionist or “other” when it comes to the union, a position that isn’t tenable after an SNP merger, successful or not. Will Labour also take credit an independence referendum to themselves?

BrexitGlory is a political pundit, analyst and journalist active in Westminster and Holyrood. For inquiries, tips and leaks: Klobucharge#0830