Model Telegraph

Senior Labour MPs such as /u/Arichteabiscuit are up in arms in the Commons, giving passionate speeches and demanding nothing less of exact definite details of the budget. Anything less and they descend into outrage. But what’s fascinating is that the Shadow Chancellor, my counterpart, stands by his decision to dodge questions and telling me to await the budget. He proudly said at the Sunrise MQ’s that he was not giving me a sneak preview of the budget when I asked him about the direction he was moving taxation in. He told MP’s that specific plans will have to wait and throughout the session MPs in the House were none the wiser on the direction of Sunrise economic policy. It was clear to me at the time that the Shadow Chancellor was treating parliament with nothing but disrespect.

My question to Labour MPs, is where were they demanding parliament have such specific answers back then? The answer is that they don’t care about parliament or accountability but whatever suits their agenda the most. It is hypocrisy at its finest, they know if their man is at the treasury it’s fine to not even provide the slightest direction. In contrast to the shadow chancellor which could not even tell us the direction that taxes would move, I have informed the house we will be freezing income tax, national insurance and VAT. I have also informed the house of how we close the deficit by raising the carbon tax and reviewing welfare spending in the United Kingdom, these answers are far beyond what the Labour Party gave the house of commons during their time in government. Labour back in the 2010s opposed the coalition government’s move to raise VAT and argued this would negatively impact communities so I would be keen to see what what ARichteabiscuit would have to say, as their logic appears to imply that the government should provide full details on all policies at the moment of asking, even when a Government has only been around a matter of weeks and there hasn’t been time to finalise certain details, under the pretence of representing affected communities. Where were they then demanding the specific rate it would be raised to? Surprise Surprise they didn’t.

 Labour MPs are getting restless and showing blatant opportunism in the House of Commons. They have no right to be angry at my detailed responses in contrast to the nonsense splurted out by the Shadow Chancellor. 

Labour’s resident hothead, thePootisPower, who was thrown out of the House for swearing and disrespecting a Deputy Speaker when asked to withdraw wasn’t happy when his parties record was brought up and had no answer for his hypocrisy. This did not stop him from having the cheek to call someone else a petulant child. The reality is that the budget figures are still in the process of being finalised and the house will get to scrutinise them soon, when they are placed before the Souse.

The hypocrisy on display doesn’t stop there with Labour MP /u/apth10 supporting a question tabled by DUP member /u/greejatus on Ambercare calling it a “poison pill”. What he forgets is that Labour voted for the bill, so if it was a poison pill as described by apth10 himself then what does that say of his intelligence given he voted for it? Truly astounding. And then he decided to tell porkies as Labour often do arguing that Ambercare was somehow a Blurple policy despite the fact that I spoke and voted against it, and that it was implemented during the time of the Sunrise Government, enabled by Labour votes. Labour are banking on people not looking at their voting record and policies as if they did their claims would not stand up to scrutiny. 

They complain about the £23 billion deficit yet voted against fiscal responsibility this term and were promising to rack up a deficit much larger than this, all of a sudden Labour want to talk tough on the deficit while promising billions of pounds on pointless nationalisations and spending money on public expenditure programmes like there is no tomorrow. Let’s be clear that Labour would run a larger deficit compared to £23 billion given their plans in sunrise were for a fiscal expansion compared to the status quo, so when they try to talk big on the budget deficit one should actually looking at their voting record and disastrous plans.

Labour may claim to stand for parliamentary scrutiny but only on the condition it does not apply to them while in government, this explains why they broke the law when it came to the climate change act and explains the rampant hypocrisy and double standards of the parliamentary Labour Party. 

This article is an opinion piece by the Chancellor Of The Exchequer /u/friedmanite19

I believe you can tell a lot about a party from its name. Some of them are quite simple. The Libertarian party, LPUK, are Libertarians; they stand for small government and low taxes. I don’t much like the politics of the Labour party, but you know what you are getting when you vote for them. They’re the *labour* party, they are what they say they are, right there on the tin. In a world where politicians are more eager to sidestep real responsibility than solve problems, I think it’s important the public are informed on who they’re voting for. Most of the major parties have kept to the tradition of being honest with naming their parties after their principles, but now that paradigm has been broken by the DRF, the threat rises too from TPM in the upcoming election.

The three minor parties all have very dubious names. Some of them sound as if they are opposing factions in a middle eastern civil war; is that really the kind of attitude we need in Westminster? Nor do any of their names actually mean anything. Loyalist League? Loyal to what? The crown? The nation? That’s basically unionism. I can somewhat forgive them for the “league” part as it seems it’s more a product of uncreative forced alliteration than anything else.

The DRF at least say something meaningful in their name, these republicans obviously want “democratic” reform, allegedly. But what else? For a party to be legitimate it should have clear group of principles to staunchly stick to, not a single policy. I’m puzzled that they’re a “major” party now, they may well be major on one thing but they’re still a minor force to me. In a bizarre move this week they merged with the Party of Wales (Plaid Cymru), another party with a deliberately vague and entitled name. I suppose there was only room for one group of separatists in Wales. Why they must be called the “front” is beyond me, why not “democratic reform party”? Fronts are for battlefields, not democratic halls of power.

TPM are perhaps the worst of all, inherently arrogant and entitled. Who are they to say they represent the people with a mere two MPs? How can they be the people’s movement when nobody votes for them? An alarming policy of TPM is the abolition of the monarchy, not very popular with the people at all with only ~15% of British people in favour of morphing into a republic. If they’re a movement not a party, they shouldn’t have any business in Westminster; but rather mingling on the outskirts of a fragile and very left-wing student protest. Perhaps TPM designed their name as a substitute for their lack of real popularity among the people and their lack of movement towards number 10.

Why the concern though? My concern is three-fold. Firstly, the minor radicals should be honest with the British people. It should say on the ballot paper who they are and what they want. Every other major party has manged it. It’s deliberate deceit. Make no mistake, the minor radicals are ready to betray Britain and their promises if it benefits their power grab.

Secondly, when these parties rise to power, or seize it, they have the unique ability to interpret loyalty, democracy or “the people” however they wish. They can use their populist methods to justify a great number of wicked things, we’ve seen it all before. They can ping around the political spectrum with remarkable flexibility, laying waste to our constitution and leaving us principled moderates to clear up the mess after they’ve gone.

Thirdly, it’s power without purpose. In the devolved assemblies we have seen power without purpose manifest into chaotic decisions, notably in Northern Ireland. When politicians don’t have a purpose, they resolve to virtue signalling and creating haphazard legislation. If it wasn’t for the sound, moderate and sensible policies of the Classical Liberals, Scotland and Wales would be a mess. I thank the hard work of my party and its members every day for that. It isn’t the point though, the system should be designed so our precious constitution and way of life is protected from this madness, no matter who gains power. These minor radicals have no principles

Labour: Major radical

I noticed an ooze of confidence from the minor radicals this week, more so than their usual arrogance, and not just from the DRF. My suspicions led me to catch up with a major party with a history of dabbling in radical republicanism and nationalism; the Labour party of course.

I asked Sam, on behalf of the Telegraph, if Labour had plans to endorse any of the minor radicals. The reply was suspicious to say the last.

“Labour have negotiated with a variety of parties for endorsement deals.”

When pressed specifically on TPM and the DRF being in that variety, Sam declined to answer any specifics. I think it’s probably safe to say that the minor radicals have certainly been in negotiations with Labour and are most likely endorsed in some places. We could be seeing a lot more of them in Westminster come February. I hope my words are heeded and the British people don’t turn to populist nationalism, including the Labour party.

/u/BrexitGlory is a political pundit and reporter active in Westminster, as well as a Classical Liberal MP.

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

Throughout its history, the British Parliament has passed hundreds if not thousands of bills, some of the evolutionary and some revolutionary. However very few of them are as ruinous and misguided as B949, commonly known as “The Immigration Bill”, introduced by the former “Sunrise” government.

A bill which has the potential to force government ministers to unwillingly trap the United Kingdom in the European Union and to effectively kill Brexit once and for all, all the while loosening citizenship requirements and opening the British labour market to cheap labour not just from Europe, but a large chunk of the Commonwealth countries.

A question arises “How will immigration reform kill Brexit?” 

Through the first clause of the proposed bill “(1) The Secretary of State is empowered and instructed to enter negotiations with member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the European Union and members of the Commonwealth of Nations with the objective of a treaty guaranteeing the free movement of workers as set out in section 1 of this Act.”

In the simplest of terms, the government is compelled to work towards freedom of movement with EU, NATO and Commonwealth member states that have 3/4s of the United Kingdom’s Gross National Product, which in itself is nigh impossible and had previously been ruled out by the EU itself, with Michael Barnier the EU chief negotiator saying “…as far as I’m aware there is no way to simply allow the wealthy countries in and not the rest. Nor would we want that”, however, the catch is in the fact that the government is “empowered and instructed” read legally compelled to negotiate with the European Union “with the objective of a treaty guaranteeing the free movement of workers”. 

This is incredibly problematic as Freedom of Movement is one of the “four freedoms” or cornerstones of the European Single Market, which are defined as “free movement of people, goods, services and capital”.

Said freedoms are considered inseparable by the European Union as stated by Mr Barnier “the stance of the European Union that the four freedoms are indivisible. Freedom of Movement cannot work without the other three, nor can the other three work without it”, thus to comply with the legal requirement set out by the bill the Government would be forced to accept all 4 freedoms of the single market, effectively trapping Britain in the Single market creating a limbo between Leave and Remain, all the while the results of 2 referendums, which soundly rejected both Remain and the Single Market are ignored.

Yet the issues posed by this piece of legislation don’t end with the death of Brexit, the legislation lays out plans to drastically reduce the requirements for the granting of a British citizenship and allows “unintentional administrative errors made by an applicant when filling out forms.”, effectively giving applicants the license to lie when applying for citizenship, allows certain immigrants to claim benefits in the United Kingdom and selectively chooses, which countries’ citizens are worthy of working in the United Kingdom all in the name of “diversity”.

One question remains, however, is the Opposition attempting to bring back its failed Brexit strategy through the backdoor or is it so out of touch that it is expecting the European Union to budge on something  which had been ruled out only a couple of months ago…

Tommy1Boys no doubt massively influenced UK politics having been one of the leading voices within the Classical Liberals to advocate leaving the Liberal Alliance and join the broadright brexit coalition in order to leave the European Union with a deal. He was one of the leaders of the Pizza group with lobbied the then Classical Liberal leader twistednuke to leave the coalition. 

His resignation as Foreign Secretary was a vital moment and ultimately lead to the downfall of the Wagbo government. During the Brexit coalition he played a central part in the government and as a Classical Liberal Deputy Leader played an important role in the run up to the Brexit deadline. 

Despite being a passionate advocate of the broadright coalition and its brexit policy Mr 1 Boys was one of the most vocal critics of the Blurple coalition which won an outright majority in the General election. He led opposition voices to the government’s controversial prescription charge plans and legalisation of use of tear gases. It is important to note he did walk through the Aye lobby for a good chunk of gregfest bills but did not keep opposition to himself when he opposed the coalition. This won him few friends in the Conservatives and Libertarians. 

He advocated for the so called Exec co government after it was clear the Conservatives and LPUK could not command a majority in the house but took a job in sunrise and worked hard to make it work defending it to the hilt in its early days. Sunrise was never a stable coalition so it’s safe to say it didn’t end how he would have liked. He took over the leadership of the Classical Liberals and the role of Deputy Prime Minister  part way through the coalition however as time went on divisions in the government became clear over British steel and a series of left wing bills pushed by minister jgm0228 which alienated Classical Liberal MP’s and even backbench Liberal Democrat’s. He finally had enough and urged his own party to leave Sunrise which in the end led to the fall of the government. His career has no doubt had its ups and downs but he will be proud of achieving the title of Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign as he leaves the frontline of UK politics have left a sizeable mark on the landscape.

The Telegraph got the chance to conduct a tell all interview with the former Deputy Prime Minister and his reflections on the inner working of Sunrise.

When asked what his reasons for the Classical Liberals leaving Sunrise Mr 1 Boys told the telegraph that

 Really it was 3 fold. The first is that it was clear Sunrise could not provide stable leadership for the country. Sure my party could have continued in the coalition, but things had ground to a halt and the public could see at every moment we seemed to be hours from collapse. A country does not need that, and I am especially thankful now that in this incredibly dangerous international incident, we do have stable Government. The second reason is that it was clear there was not enough policy agreement for us to continue to work together. Following the decision by Labour to abandon the coalition agreement over trains, a hard won negotiating concession, we could not realistically carry on. Finally, the rudderless nature of the Government, a PM who for reasons out of his control was not as active as needed, and as DPM I did not have the political capital to lead the Government in his absence, it simply became an unworkable coalition that had to end.”

Tommy1Boys

When pressed he was hesitant to condemn jgm0028 despite the rumours of his part in the collapse of the coalition, Mr 1 Boys described him as “one of the hardest working members of the coalition” and told us that they “worked extremely close on immigration reform” but admitted they did have “heated arguments” and that his legislation was disliked by the Classical Liberal backbenchers

At the beginning of the term pundits examined the Queen’s speech and saw this government as Classically Liberal dominated with key Clib policies being in the speech so it is surprising how the Classical Liberals pulled out. Mr 1 Boys told the telegraph that” Labour undoubtedly went back on their word as the record shows. “ He accused Labour of not being uphold their side of bargain with regards to the railway bill. 

A lot of the controversial bills in sunrise were not in the coalition agreement but were signed off by the Classical liberals. Mr 1 Boys spoke frankly admitting his “Predecessor did approve too many bills without seeking dialogue with our back benches, and it is something I improved as leader. “ He was also quick to point out that the Liberal Democrat backbenchers were just to oppose some of the legislation in question such as the labour rights mitigation bill.

When pressed about his predecessors role in the ultimate demise of the coalition Mr 1 Boys said that twistednuke was “was and is one of my dearest friends in politics,” but conceded that  they “were a bit to the left of the Classical Liberal membership which caused problems” and that that “bills were accepted without enough being done to look at whether or not the back benches of the Clibs and LDems would accept them.”

“No party is free from blame and as Deputy Prime Minister and as leader of the party that led us out of the coalition I shoulder a significant proportion of the blame and I will always regret not being able to save the coalition, but yes I believe my predecessor’s actions did not help the coalition stability, although not as much as some of Labour’s later actions.”

Tommy1Boys giving his opinion on the collapse of the sunrise government

He rejected the notion that he was responsible for a Blurple government reiterating his preference was for a Labour- Liberal Democrat government and that it is the Liberal Democrat’s withdrawal that led to the blurple government. When asked if he could envisage the Classical Liberals working with Labour again he said “I do not believe the current Labour Leader has behaved in a way that suggests he wants to work with us.” Talking about what he would personally support the telegraph in a revealing response said “Ii would personally support a Labour led administration if I felt that a Conservative led one would return to the days of the first Blurple Government and the misery they tried to inflict on the British people in the name of ideology. A moderate, one nation Conservative led Government would be my choice in the current political reality.” After the last few months this is quite an interesting development.

When asked what his biggest regret the ex Deputy Prime Minister said his biggest  regret was “not making more progress on the JCPOA. As FoSec I worked hard to bring parties back around the table and I was proud that France, Germany, Iran and the US all agreed to return to the negotiating table and positive noises were coming from those talks. The JCPOA was possibly the greatest act of diplomacy in the 21st century, and the decision by this Government to ditch it makes the world a more dangerous place. Citizens are less safe in this bed because of that decision, and I never thought I’d say that about a Tory Government.”  Mr 1 Boys was a key opponent of the government’s plans to withdraw from the JCPOA. On the current situation he told the telegraph that he welcomed the government’s reversal and said he was proud to have assembled a team of former prime ministers and finally he praised the PM arguing that “the PM should be applauded not shamed for this u-turn”

Finally we asked Mr 1 Boys about the budget agreement reached between the Classical Liberals and the government and he sounded positive about the budget which is extraordinary given his past policy disagreements with the LPUK. He told the telegraph he was “pleased a budget agreement has been made,” he stated this was not his dream budget but said the budget “will be of a material benefit to those getting a tax cut, and those people in Scotland and Wales who are getting more money from central government. The chancellor should be congratulated on his hard work and also to my friend HiddeVdV96 for coming to such an agreement and sticking To our principles. “He anticipated future criticism saying that “some may attack us over it   unlike the Lib Dem’s who wants to scrap the triple lock so they can raise your taxes, I happen to think tax rises on the worst off are a bad way to go about things, and keeping the triple lock is good for everyone. “ He is clearly still an influential figure in the Classical Liberals being finance minister in Scotland and if recent events tell us anything he is going to continue to voice his opinions and seek change to change the country.

In a heated debate on the government’s strategy with regards to Iran the shadow secretary of state for equalities dropped the F-bomb twice while responding to the Defence Secretary statement. Elsewhere in his speech, he called for the resignation of the Foreign Secretary and was extremely critical of the government’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA – a move which has been condemned by two former conservative prime ministers.

ThePootisPower refused to withdraw his unparliamentary language and was thrown out of the House of Commons by the speakership, this is quite extraordinary given that he is a member of Labour’s frontbench team and there will no doubt be questions raised about his temperament to serve in cabinet should the party be elected to government after the general election. His comments were also supported by the infamous Shadow Home Secretary who echoed his support the members comments with the offending statement. This isn’t the first time in the week to which he has drawn attention to himself with him making an error about Baghdad, the capital of Iraq being in Iran.

The Classical Liberal Leader /u/HiddeVdV96 gave the telegraph the following statement:

I think it’s a tragedy that it has come to this, but it was the right decision. MPs should be an example of good behavior for all people in the UK and swearing like that in the HOC is something that has to be taken seriously. I’m glad that the Deputy Speakers did something about that, let this set an example for the future.

HiddeVdV96

He also told the Telegraph that he believed Labour should seriously  reconsider thepootispowers role on the front bench.

The Defence Secretary /u/seimer1234 said that “Poot’s lack of knowledge on the Middle East is quite concerning, and this, coupled with his unparliamentary language resulting in his expulsion from the chamber, should be a cause of concern for anyone who would consider putting the Labour Party back into power, given these are the characters that shall make up their cabinet””

Labour told the Telegraph that they did not endorse not endorse the behavior of the pootispower during the debate of the statement regarding Iran. They stated that they  believe that the Government’s reckless statement on Iran merited fierce criticism but still believe that debate in the Commons should always abide by the standards dictated by the rules in the chamber. When pressed whether any action would occur they said a warning had been issued and that if incidents like this are repeated then they will take action.

It came as no surprise to the nation that Sam (/u/sam-irl) has risen to lead the Labour party, winning the latest Labour leadership contest. A press statement released from the party confirmed Sam won a stonking 82% of the first preference vote, winning 28/36 votes.

Labour stands mostly alone on the left and with a large membership, meaning the leader will have to cater to a broad church. When asked about their position on that spectrum they replied:

My ideology is simple: I believe that every citizen of the United Kingdom should have a guarantee of decent living conditions…Personally I would consider myself a socialist, but I understand that not everyone in Labour is, and I intend to be a leader for everyone across Labour’s ideological spectrum.

The challenge of staying united could be either exacerbated or eased with the Deputy Leader appointment, a vacancy left behind by Sam. Sam declined to reveal which candidate would get their vote and assured this paper that each of the three contenders would make an excellent Deputy Leader.

What next?

As business resumes this week Labour MPs are set to hound the government for it’s £33bn black hole in the budget. Although the error was made by the civil service, Labour will look to criticise the error regardless.

We certainly wouldn’t have gotten rid of the Corporation Tax. Instead, we’d have been happy to institute more progressive means of taxation to fund our programme of building a better Britain.

With a general election coming up, Sam will likely look to using Labour’s numbers and capacity for two things. Firstly, the planning of nationwide campaigning events. With candidates in every list seat, and likely a majority of FPTP seats, the public can be expecting some events near them. With the party seemingly unified around their new leader, legislation writing for the new manifesto will be a primary task and one that is easily mobilised by the large and united membership. On the manifesto Sam commented:

…It will center around our vision of building a better Britain for our citizens and our descendants. In terms of GE success: we have an energised membership base and I’m confident we can translate that energy into a successful campaign.

Another Labour source revealed that the party are aiming to run in 35 of the available 50 FPTP seats, as well as every list seat.

Coalition conundrum

With Sunrise in tatters and many Labour MPs pointing the finger at the Classical Liberals, the party could find itself isolated on the left. However, with its newfound energy and numbers it may not matter. A good campaign could see Labour winning enough seats to only need help from their immediate allies in the Liberal Democrats. Nevertheless, Sam kept the options open, stating:

Sunrise failed due to a variety of factors and I think it’d be unfair to assign all of the blame to the CLibs. I can’t say that all of their Leadership were very helpful or interested in saving the coalition. However, Willem was very eager to save Sunrise and I still have lots of respect for him because of how he acted towards the end.

While most party leaders inherit an organisation in disrepair, Sam seems to have run at the perfect time; the membership motivated, the government having a bad week and an election on the horizon. Despite not being able to avoid another sun rise coalition, it could be a far redder one than last time.

The Libertarian Party UK’s motion urging the Government to drop plans to nationalise British steel passed 47-42 giving it a majority of 5 in the House of Commons: Inflicting a major defeat on the Government. This will come as another blow to the Labour Party is dealt with Deputy Prime Minister Tommy1Boys coming out against the nationalisation plans of the Government despite voting against the motion due to CCR.

The motion passed with support of backbench Classical Liberal and Liberal Democrat MPs. 3 MPs from each party rebelled against the government whip including the current Chancellor of The Exchequer Duncs11 and veteran Liberal Democrat bloodycontrary. The Government would have already been expecting trouble with Liberal Democrat MPs supporting the LPUK’s motion in the debate debating Labour frontbenchers on the matter. The Telegraph asked former Prime Minister and heavyweight Liberal Democrat MP TheNoHeart, who rebelled and supported the motion, what he thought of the passage of the motion.

A satisfying decision by the House of Commons that speaks towards working with the government when they’re right and being open to tell them when they’re proposing ill-crafted solutions.

TheNoHeart

There were several more abstentions on the government benches which helped the motion sail to victory.

For: 48

CON (27) LPUK (14) LD (3) CLIB (3)

Against: 42

LAB (26) CLIB (6) LD (4) CON(1) Other (5)

This represents a massive defeat for the Government and especially for the passionate advocates of the proposal in the Labour Party. This defeat alongside the Chief Secretary To the Treasury’s legislative agenda which is no doubt playing in many Classical Liberal MP’s minds as they vote whether to leave the Sunrise coalition with his recent Bill on the national grid being opposed by the Deputy Prime Minister. The passage of this motion will be a huge kick in the face for the government and may further fracture the Sunrise coalition as they decide how to reply to the motion.

The Telegraph spoke to the new Chancellor Duncs who said that “The Government recognises the vote cast in the House of Commons on the Steel Nationalisation motion.” and that “The Cabinet will now discuss the best way to proceed.” When pressed he was unable to rule out a nationalisation of British Steel and could not commit to the motions instructions but told the Telegraph the following

How the Government proceed from now will be discussed by the Cabinet and so I am unable to say with certainty what will be done now, although it is clear the vote had significance and I’m sure every political analyst will have the same view on what’s likely

Duncs11, Chancellor of the Exchequer

There will likely be an internal debate between the Classical Liberals and Labour Party whether to follow this motion and this could be crucial in the future of the Sunrise coalition and how Classical Liberal MPs and ministers vote in the so called Clexit vote. Even if Labour wish to ignore the motion, the LPUK have released a press statement saying they will bring forward legally binding (primary) legislation to the House of Commons to prevent any nationalisation occurring and it’s possible this could secure Classical Liberal support if they leave the coalition. Whatever happens with British Steel, it will be an interesting few days ahead and this vote could prove to play a crucial factor in whether Sunrise survives or not.