Model Telegraph

In a curious turn of events in parliament the right-hand division lobby for the second reading of B952 was near empty. The bill that would have banned tear gas usage against violent rioters was expected to pass (just) with Labour support but only three of their MPs managed to turn up; depleting the drama that had built up around how close the vote would have been. Excited activists outside parliament were left confused and bitterly disappointed. Disappointment turned to anger at Labour’s incompetence.

/u/SmashBrosGuys2933, Labour’s chief whip, took personal responsibility claiming that he did not know it was up for division and it was a ‘simple error’. Labour leader, /u/ARichTeaBiscuit also took responsibility saying that is was “unfortunate communication issue with the whipping system that has since been resolved”.

In an interview with the Telegraph the leader the leader also clarified that Labour did indeed still support the bill and it will be resubmitted for next term with Labour’s support. /u/ARichTeaBiscuit also issued an apology to voters and members:

The Telegraph also caught up with /u/HKNorman, the shadow home secretary who was present at the vote. While it remains unclear why they didn’t send out any alerts when noticing the empty Labour benches, the MP said they had “full confidence” in the leadership and the whips, believing that it was “an honest mistake.” The shadow secretary also expressed their support for the bill to be resubmitted. The Telegraph took the opportunity to ask them about the up coming election. /u/HKNorman admitted that Labour had an “uphill battle” with the recent leadership issues and their lack of big allies. However, they remained hopeful and optimistic stating:

“Our poll rating is higher than it’s been in recent memory, and we stand to make gains on our performance in the last election…the British people are still receptive to the Labour message, and now that we have a steady ship, I have confidence that the British people will only grow more receptive, putting us in a strong position to retake government come the election.”

Rather humorously the shadow secretary summarised it as “strangely strong”.

Leader of the house of commons and former Home Secretary, /u/cthulhuiscool2 said the following to our reporter regarding the incident:

“I’m pleased the effectiveness of the police force has not been diminished, thanks again to the bumbling and ineffectual Labour Party and their new leader. Not a good start for a party seeking to prove itself capable of governing once more.“

The question does remain however, just what were Labour MPs doing when the division bell rang? Some Labour staffers were found lounging in the strangers bar and in and around parliament, all oblivious to the division taking place. According to the new Labour leader, MPs were responding to constituents and personal business; despite not being anywhere near their constituency offices…

I am a big fan of the traditional foot patrol of the police constabulary in crime hot spots. Too many people in this country simply do not see police officers for months, often years and sometimes decades. The only time most ever see any is after a serious incident has already occurred, secretly admitting that a visible police force is a useful thing. I’m lucky enough to be an MP, I dive in and out of parliament almost every day, and there are always police officers there. That’s why it’s so easy for us MPs to forget how few police constables are actually on the streets.

I, and I believe the rest of the nation, are fed up with governments dismissing serious incidents as “petty crime”, that should go unpunished and instead rehabilitated; if they are caught by our passive police force that is. “Petty crime” can ruin lives. Robbery can shut a family business down. A stolen car can get set you back for years. An assault can leave you disabled and traumatised. This is not petty.

When positive action and real initiative is taken by an authority, it allows them to take control over a crisis. In our case it’s about crime prevention, taking action to prevent crime before victims call 999. Britain’s modern police force does not follow this tried and tested philosophy. Instead they cram themselves into a wailing Subaru to respond to a report, whizzing past crime hotpots and forgotten communities as they do so. Of course I’m not saying officers shouldn’t respond to crime, but a holistic policing strategy should include preventive measures. Our police force is reactive at best, and at worst passive. Recruiting 10,000 new officers is a good first step to being active and taking the initiative on crime.

How exactly can this be done? It’s obvious to people like me; the return of the traditional foot patrol of the constabulary. 10,000 new police officers won’t help prevent crime if they aren’t doing the right thing. If they become state-sponsored jobsworths, held captive by endless streams of paperwork, then they are useless; just as useless as the officers in squad cars on the highway.

Traditional police foot patrols are good for a number of reasons. First and foremost, foot patrols bring back a deterrent to crime. They are a constant presence that the land has a law, and our officers are here to serve it. It doesn’t matter how many years in prison the courts threaten to criminals, it’s not a deterrent unless they get caught, arrested and convicted. Researchers have long known that the increasing the severity of a punishment doesn’t do anything if there is a low likelihood of arrest.

A 2001 study by Daniel Nagin and Greg Pogarsky, scholars on deterrence, concluded “punishment certainty is far more consistently found to deter crime than punishment severity”.

It’s no surprise that when just 2% of crimes lead to conviction in the UK, that criminals don’t even think about getting caught; let alone the consequences of conviction. The Home Office in 1993 found that the probability of being sent to prison for a crime was 0.3%, or 1 in every 300 crimes. That is not justice. No one believes they will be caught committing crime if they never see a police officer, it’s that simple. By having an active and visible police force, criminals are faced with a real deterrent, and so crime will fall. A 2011 study (Bowers et al. 2011) also found that when police foot patrols were present in crime hot spots, crime also reduced in surrounding areas, and was not simply “dispersed”.

Community engagement should be a central part of a holistic policing strategy involving bobbies on the beat. Police officers should know the communities they are in. It is not a well-known fact, but many police officers do not live where they are deployed to, some haven’t even heard of the place they are told to respond to. It is therefore no surprise that the antics of crime gangs, strange changes of persons in a neighbourhood and curious behaviour of silent victims goes completely unnoticed. Community engagement should see volunteer groups, businesses, and residents responding with a local and visible police force to combat local issues related to crime. When the community is engaged in the process, trust between the police and diverse groups is strengthened, this is crucial if the authorities expect help from people when called upon.

“the English police have lost their symbolic aura, their capacity to command widespread implicit trust” – Loader and Mulcahy (2003)

To me, this is simply unacceptable. Not just for the aforementioned reason but also for the cause of law and order. If there is no trust in authorities to do their job honestly and diligently, then we risk a rise in vigilantism.

We saw this disturbance just last summer, when eco-tyrants traveled to my constituency, to do their very best to sabotage commuters’ plans; blocking roads and bridges as they saw fit. Unsurprisingly people were not very happy, but thankfully the London commuter has to be a naturally patient people – how else will they cope with delayed and non-existent trains? For some time, the nasty antics of these entitled eco-tyrants was put up with, people trusted that the authorities would respond and handle the situation, until they didn’t. Eco-warriors foolishly climbed on top of commuter trains during rush hour, in an attempt to escalate their efforts in shutting the capital down. Thousands of people were left with no alternative but to wait, but enough waiting had been done. It was already shown that it seems to take hours for a police officer to arrive and then actually do something. Patriots decided to take it into their own hands, climbing atop of the trains themselves and shoving the eco-tyrants down into a mob of angry people. I was happy to see the everyday person being empowered to act, I was less happy to see it being a necessity and seeing that so little trust was put into the police to actually be there and deal with the matter. Like I said, commuters are a patient breed, but if it wasn’t for a brave few who protected the protestors from the angrier members of the mob, there could’ve been far more horrid scenes. The primary deterrent from crime should be the law being enforced by diligent and dutiful constables, not public outrage at these fools.

This is why a trusted police force must also be visible to non-offenders, reassuring them that crime will be tackled; and that they are not alone and do not have to take the law into their own hands. If the only time people see police officers is because something bad has happened or will happen, trust will degrade and has degraded. Of course young black men in the inner city tend not to trust the police, they only ever see them when one of them is about to get arrested. This trust can only be rebuilt if constables are active in communities, not passive in painfully annoying squad cars.

There is also widespread public support for the return of the trusted and effective bobby on the beat. It’s not just a wise policing strategy, it’s also a good electoral strategy for any parties who wish to increase their polling ahead of the election.

The foot patrol of the constabulary may seem old-fashioned and overly traditional to some, but I don’t see how that is necessarily a bad thing. Familiarity is important if an authority is to be trusted. When it comes to crime perhaps a little bit of old-fashion and familiarity is a good thing. I was once accused by a left-winger of wanting an army of “PC George Dixons”, they were absolutely right. I want police constables to be trustworthy, active and knowledgeable of the local community; giving the law a constant presence, empowering communities and reassuring the public. They should quietly blend in while being beacons for law and order.

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

Ever since it’s the foundation in 1834 the Conservative and Unionist party has always been one of the largest and most influential, if not the single most influential, political party in British history.

Their success can mostly be traced back to two primary factors – the relative popularity of different forms of conservatism such as the fabled One Nation conservatism, Liberal Conservatism, and Thatcherism with the British electorate and the party’s status as a “big tent” center-right party, which allows the party to gain support from both centrist and more right-wing voters from all four corners of the United Kingdom.

With both the Loyalist League and the Libertarian Party on the rise and the integration of Classical Liberals into the Conservative Party, a fundamental question arises “has the church become too broad?”

To answer that question it is imperative to consider what are the key cornerstones of the Tory party, which can be defined as fiscal conservatism, British unionism, and Euroscepticism. Of course, these characteristics may shift over time depending on the current faction in power, for instance, there are slight policy differences between the former conservative party leader Margaret Thatcher and the current Prime Minister /u/modelmili, although the key characteristics remain.

With the merger between the Conservatives and the Europhilic Classical liberals and the move of many long-time Tory members to the Libertarians and Loyalist League, these defining values may slowly erode as the Conservative Party tries to increase its appeal with the more Liberal voters at the expense of their more right-wing supporters.

Such a move is not unheard of as a similar shift occurred during under David Cameron and his “hug-a-hoodie” strategy, which managed to successfully modernise the image of the Tories allowing them to become the biggest party in the 2010 general election and to subsequently form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Another similar situation to the Clib-Tory merger would be the 2017 integration of UKIP into the Conservative party.

What is different from the days of David Cameron and the UKIP merger, is the scope of the shift as the Conservatives have integrated an entire distinct party with inherently different policies in regards immigration and the EU into their ranks and the presence of other right-wing alternatives, which means that the more right-wing Tory voters do not have to vote tactically to keep Labour out.

The policy differences between the Classical Liberals and the Tories will probably be the most problematic in the long run as the Tories will most likely not be capable of forming a majority government on their own and will be forced to pick between forming a coalition with the centrist Liberal Democrats or the more right-wing Libertarian Party, with the latter option being more likely to give the Tories a working majority needed to form a government.

Regardless of the choice made the coalition choice will be sure to displease a significant part of the Tory voters, be it the party’s new Liberal supporters or the core right-wing voters, due to the compromises that will have to be made for a such a coalition government to properly function.

In some cases, such compromises may not please everyone involved as proven by several high-profile Tory members defecting to the Loyalist League with the former Minister for the Cabinet Office /u/GravityCat writing “I am fearful that this merger reflects the rot of repeated opportunistic decisions being considered more important than firstly being a Conservative party.” In his resignation letter, whilst /u/PM-me_Gretchien wrote to the Prime Minister “I have a lot of respect for the Conservative Party and remain hopeful that one day it will return to its storied past support of true and unabridged British conservatism, and that the party can move on from the increasingly opportunistic social liberal parasitism”, showing that not everyone can be easily pleased by such a compromise.

Yet the biggest issue will most likely come after the formation of the government as the Prime Minister will be forced to find the incredibly delicate balance between pleasing both the conservative and liberal factions of his party and appeasing his coalition partners, all the while facing immense scrutiny from both the voters and the Opposition, especially Labour which has also seen a rise in the polls.

In the short-term however the benefits of integrating the Classical Liberals into the Tory party are immense as they gave the party a massive polling boost which can be seen here:

Polling of other right-wing parties late December to early January

Source: aggregate Reddit polling.

What has to be noted though is that both the Classical Liberals and the Conservatives have been in relative decline in comparison to other right-wing parties and that even though the Classical Liberals have been fully integrated into the Tories approximately a quarter of Classical Liberal voters chose not to support the Conservatives. Another issue when considering the effect of the merger on the Conservative Party is that, whilst the party has grown in numbers it may not have necessarily grown in activity as only a portion of Classical Liberal MPs has been truly active over the past couple of weeks.

So whilst in the immediate run-up to the general election the Conservatives appear to have gained massively in the polls, it is still uncertain whether they will be able to hold onto these new voters during the actual election and whether they will not decline even further in the coming weeks, due to the ever-increasing pressure from other right-wing parties and Labour and their relatively lower activity in comparison to the before-mentioned parties.

What is certain however is that merely integrating the Classical Liberals into the Tory Party will probably not be enough to maintain Tory dominance in the long-term and the party will need to increase its activity if it has any hope of remaining the most influential right-wing party in British politics.

The continued captivity of the word “liberal” by semi-socialists reached new levels of madness this week. In what should’ve been fantastic news for everyone, the Classical Liberals and the government maintained the triple lock, freezing taxes for the poorest in society. Now of course Labour would disagree with this, that is no surprise. The surprise was the Liberal Democrats being so against low taxes for working families. A rising parliamentary star on the Liberal Democrat benches and the party’s spokesperson for the economy, /r/Randomman44, came out to attack those backing the tax freeze. They said they do not support it and openly declared it hurts the poorest.

If the Liberal Democrats aren’t in favour of the tax freeze, then they must be in favour of tax rises. This was puzzling to more traditional liberals (sometimes referred to as Classical Liberals – someone should make a new party) as VAT, NIC and income tax all target working people the most. Low taxes not only stimulate a healthy and sustainable economy, they also don’t directly punish the poor. Liberals should love low taxes, too bad these “Liberals” align themselves more with socialists than the rest of the right.

Last week parliament also witnessed senior Liberal Democrats arguing in favour of extinguishing Britain’s offshore drilling industry. Putting aside the geopolitical surrender to nasty Saudi Arabia and Russia that would mean, it would also have implications at home. When governments ban things, it doesn’t immediately make demand go away. Banning offshore drilling doesn’t mean we no longer want to heat hospitals or the homes of the elderly. Nor does it mean we won’t want to drive our cars or fuel our factories. These demands come from the bottom up, not the top down; therefore, if the government were to mandate this from the top down, they will find themselves at odds with the British people. That would be unwise.

What actually happens at home if the government were to ban offshore drilling is two-fold. Firstly, tens of thousands of British jobs disappear, entire families and communities find themselves with no economic prospects for years. Rising unemployment isn’t just bad for those who find themselves jobless, it’s bad for everyone. The more unemployment there is, the more wage depreciation there is, as the labour market shifts in favour of employers. Many workers on British oil rigs all come from the same communities, especially in Scotland. Rising unemployment strongly concentrated in the same local communities hurts more. It may not hurt Westminster, but it will hurt local businesses who now have no customers; chiefly because of Westminster actions.

Next, fuel costs will rise, due to a well-known and understood economic concept, “supply and demand”. If we make less fuel here in Britain, there is less of it to go around and prices will rise. It’s that simple. Those of us in touch with the real world know that rising bills hurt students, the elderly and JAMs the most. The elderly often turn the heating and the lights on for the social worker, and turn them back off again once they’re gone; they cannot afford much more. Hospitals and schools too require gas and electricity, if these costs rise it will only burden the taxpayer more. The UK will also have to turn to other nations for our fuel, charging a high premium as demand will not drop. Not to mention the costs of shipping oil from halfway around the world; both cash cost and environmental cost. Why would we want to increase costs from the top down? It is not our place.

Liberals are meant to understand these basic market forces, why is it that these modern, alleged liberals do not? I felt this was odd, so I confronted them in the house of commons, with the arguments I have put to you here.

The response from their Home Spokeperson, /u/JellyCow99, was a snide sarcastic speech that didn’t even manage to make a point; the worst kind of snide sarcastic speech. They refused to recognise the importance of British jobs and energy independence, no matter how many times I came back at them.

Next up was /u/Randomman44, who didn’t disappoint when it came to misunderstanding market forces, claiming that the desired affect would be to introduce “renewables”. Not only will we still require gas and fossil fuel for some time regardless of “renewables”, the legislation does nothing to protect jobs and local communities from the devil of economic stagnation. How could they be so out of touch?

The crux of the issue is the total disregard for the needs of communities, families and individuals. There were many honourable members who backed the legislation for good reasons. These Liberal Democrats failed to give such good reason, and only demonstrated their contempt for basic economics.

There it is: rising taxes, rising unemployment and rising bills; and total lack of respect for these issues. These may be isolated policy incidents, but it exposes a gross and toxic attitude from the fib dems to the British public and to the market. An attitude that will no doubt clash with real people’s lives.

/u/BrexitGlory is a Conservative MP for London.

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

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

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

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

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

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

God save the Queen.

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

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

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

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

Internal conflict

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

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

Official comment from Sam

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

Tensions with voters over Royals

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

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

He is also a Classical Liberal Conservative MP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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