Model Telegraph

ContraBannedMC’s big gamble and ego-trip failed big time, with them finishing third in the recent Oxfordshire and Berkshire by-election, going into the election they were the favourite to win the election, the veteran socialist MP had carried the seat with a massive majority is GEIX, it was a seat they believed they could not possibly lose. Not only did they lose the seat, but they came third behind Saunders16 suggesting that ContraBannedMC was never personally popular amongst constituents, but rather that endorsements had helped them get elected. It is a huge feat for a sitting government to win a by-election, it is an even bigger upset considering the seat’s history of electing firmly left-wing candidates. Whilst the opposition come up with their cheap soundbites of ‘tear gas coalition’ and the attack dogs make cheap adverts, it appears these have not struck a chord across the country. This was the oppositions chance to back up their facts that the government is unpopular, however, this did the opposite and empowered the government. It’s notable that so-called Classical Liberals campaigned for the social democratic candidate, their message however clearly fell flat. Sunrise decided to back a party of defectors, for what? No one really knows, but it’s likely they are running out of talent and are struggling for members. The by-election saw ContraBannedMC down 29.87% showing a massive decline for his far left movement. Overall there was a 20.26% swing to the Conservatives from /ContraBannedMC.

The by-election saw a sizeable increase in turnout, with turnout at 67.67%, up from 44% showing that people are becoming more engaged with politics and empowered by this government and the changes it is bringing forward. Another possibility is that the presence of a more moderate left-wing candidate encouraged Lib Dem and more Blairite Labour voters to turnout which they may not have previously done. Despite all the odds Anomaline and the government got this seat, which no one would have foreshadowed, so the government can walk away very happy with this result.

In other news, there were protests organised by the opposition including the Classical Liberals, Labour, Lib Dems and The People’s Movement. The opposition is telling us this is a success and shows that people do not support the government. Let us go through two notable remarks made by opposition figures today:

Our turnout today will show the Government one thing, this country is motivated to oppose the actions of this Prime Minister

Tommy1boys

Isn’t it funny, how Anomline’s majority in the by election is larger than all the protestors put together, how 70,000 people represent the whole country astonishes me.

Another running theme brought up by opposition speakers was that votes at 18 was not in the Conservative and LPUK manifestos.

Nowhere in their manifestos did they state their desire to strip 16 and 17 year olds of their right to vote, and yet that’s what they’ve done

JellyCow99

The Liberal Democrats last time proposed income tax rises alongside rises in tobacco duty. They also proposed a rise in the rate of drug tax, surprisingly after reading their GEX manifesto, there was no mention of any of these policies. There was also no mention of a £40bn deficit.

The leader of new Britain ack8 sums it better than I could. This kind of rhetoric “sets a bad precedent that government legislation that was not pre-determined in a manifesto should be delayed from enactment, especially as coalition governments are common”. On and also he is a hypocrite.

This government is pressing ahead with its agenda, with many bills of the so-called Gregfest passing through with ease, and, with the political upset that occured in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, it appears firmly in control whilst still maintaining popularity.

This column was written for The Daily Telegraph by DUP Baron HenryJohnTemple of Carrickfergus as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors.

Friedmanite19 is the incumbent MP for Somerset and Bristol.

It is an issue that rears its head seemingly annually, like some sort of new public holiday. Hours upon hours of Westminster’s time dedicated to debating a sport enjoyed by a very small number of people, and only opposed by the mainstream when the news feeds are devoid of filters to place over ones profile picture on matters that will generate more likes.

Ask either side: either we are seeing the vestiges of a class-war being fought in Parliament, or we are seeing a collection of hoary old rural traditionalists baying for blood and wearing strange clothes.

Yet time and time again, Fox hunting and it’s regulation continues to rear its head in Westminster, forcing Members of Parliament to trapce down the corridors after hours of the same arguments being made, as if on loop, acting out some bizzare rendition of groundhog day each and every time the Parliamentary cycle begins to slow, and the more radical backbenchers get a chance to slip in some of their socialist playbook onto the order paper.

On one hand, defenders of the sport will argue that to curtail Fox-Hunting is just another attempt by the ‘old-left’ to reignite a long since resolved class war, in their latest attempt to tear down the establishment, and reclaim the wealth the borgiouse stole from them. They cannot close Eton, they cannot ‘reclaim’ that London Mansion you apparently stole, but by jingo they can take your Hunting!

Stemming from an ever more propograted belief that to have one’s share of the wealth, you just take it from others, rather than create it yourself, it is some small solace that this misconception is being rejected in areas such as Yorkshire, which lean ever more in favor of right-thinking politics, such as that espoused by the LPUK, LL and some elements of the Conservative Party.

On the other hand, we see an increasingly marginalised countryside right wing, long since abandoned by many, demanding their traditions and ways of life are protecting – not arbitrarily banned by those who tend only to head into the Country to visit inlaws.

Yet, as the left in the United Kingdom leans ever more to the Metrosexual politik of its ilk, becoming more of a chuntering mass of Zone 2 snobs, issuing ill thought out decrees on how the ‘simple folk’ ought to live their lives, ensconced as they are in their franchised coffee shops, we see the same arguments rising to the fore.

Hiding behind a facade of ‘animal welfare’, the class war begins again. What little extasy could have been drawn from burning down parts of London in the Riots, seems to have left a hollow void in the souls of the modern left, far less temperate and grounded than their old-guard colleagues, and so they take to kindling a new fire, on whatever issue they can find.

There is a certain irony to the so called ‘Liberal Left’ that we see putting such motions to the house. Their idea of Liberalism and the pursuit of Liberty, appears to extend only to those who share their views, and hell and damnation to all others. Labours old guard, far more grounded that the newcomers, must be dismayed indeed.

Ultimately, the argument for Fox Hunting must take a different direction in light of this increased intolerance from the new-left, where one is met by cries of bigotry and elitism, the right thinking individual must respond with a renewed call for Liberty. From within Camdens Coffee Houses, ask yourselves – does it harm others, and does it harm me?

When it comes to Foxhunting, the simple answer is – No.

Until Fox Hunters begin the chase on Hampstead Heath, it affects you in no way whatsoever.

So, why do you really oppose it?

It is worth remembering, one cannot be selective as to whom liberty is bestowed.

Yet, no matter how one looks at the Fox-Hunting Debate, and the current regulation to strengthen the laws which constrict it, the matter of Liberty cannot be avoided, no matter how hard both sides attempt to steer clear of that word.

When Tony Blair first introduces the ban on Fox Hunting – dedicated some 220 hours to its discussion, in stark contrast to the 18 he allowed for the Iraq War – he was symbolising a reversion of Parliament to the rule of tyranny by majority, in which several hundred thousands people from suburbia, rallied in defence of the apparently helpless Fox, to override the rights of those whom this new law would actually effect.

Liberty is meant to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority, something which all sides can agree on when it comes to protecting those minority groups which are currently politically ‘trendy’, yet the same torchbearers fall eerily silent when it comes to extending that Liberty to others. In contrast, it is my belief that the Liberty of the Individual can only be protected if that individual is afforded the freedom of choice, holding the willingness to bear the consequences of those choices, beneath an impartial system of law.

Banning things we do not understand, and then strengthening that regulation, on matters which do not impact or effect us, flies in the face of that idea, and emboldens an ever more top heavy state with the moral fervour to fuel further infringements on our liberty.

Of course, there are those who shall read this article as they chomp into some flatbread and mull their triple shot soy lattes, in barely concealed indignation. Why did this article not come with a trigger warning? Why is this person not as progressive as I? Yet, that is the beauty of the term progressive, as described by Peter Hitchins, in his book ‘The Abolition of Britain’:

“This is the joy of being a progressive . Whenever your views are rejected by experience, common sense and tradition, it is because you are ahead of the rest of the population, never because you are eccentric or wrong or just plain arrogant, or because they are not convinced by your arguments. They will catch up, and if not, so much the worse for them.”

To conclude, just because you live in a city and have ready and steady access to the good libraries and public transport, does not make you any more moral nor superior than those country folk we increasingly see reviled. Just because a tradition is not understood, does not mean it is wrong, and just because a practice offends but doesn’t affect you, does not mean it should be subjected to a ban.

Hiding behind the word ‘Progressive’ does not morals make.

The Fox Hunting Ban, and all attempts to strengthen or extend it, is nothing short of a crusade against Liberty, an attack on Freedom, and a cynical attempt by the modern left, to weaponise the court of public opinion, to erode the freedoms this nation and its people rightfully enjoy.

Lord Henry John Temple, the Baron Carrickfergus is a Democratic Unionist Party peer and a conservative commentator. Views expressed here are his own.

This column was written for The Daily Telegraph by DUP Baron HenryJohnTemple of Carrickfergus as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors.

The First Minister of Scotland, Alajv3, has reponded to a question posed by a Telegraph reporter about the recent manifesto launch of the Scottish wing of the Independent Social Democrats.

The Leader of the Scottish Greens, whose party is currently the minority government of the country, said that though he recognised that the Independent Social Democrat Candidate, Saunders16, did well in the recent Oxfordshire and Berkshire by-election, where Saunders beat the incumbent ContrabannedtheMC, founder of the People’s Movement, who Al’s party endorsed to win, by nearly 2,000 votes, he didn’t think they have a stable enough voter base in Scotland at this time for the devolved elections.

In reaction to the manifesto, which was launched on Tuesday Evening, the First Minister was “disappointed” that the Social Democrats want to repeal the Scottish Government’s controversial ban on private healthcare, citing that his party receives a “raise in a poll” when they talk about them and predicts that that particular policy “may be a loss” for them.

Despite this, the hopeful next First Minister admitted that he saw them as a potential coalition partner, on his belief that his party will be unable to get a majority, even if they wanted to, in order to “keep the work of a progressive Scotland going”, noting that the First Minister himself is a (small s) social democrat.

However, although he sees the SSD as better than some parties (presumably his primary opponents, Duncs11 and the Classical Liberals), he seemed to be annoyed by the fact that the Welsh Finance Minister (Saunders16) should tell the First Minister of Scotland what to do, and criticised him on account of Saunders’ coming from England and Wales and immediately launching an offensive against the Greens.

In all, the Holyrood Elections do seem to have a viable new contender on the stage, that, although possibly not this time round, but surely in future years, could transform the Scottish Political Theatre, by providing a strong centre-ground between the hardline unionism of Duncs’ delegation and the hardline nationalism of the Green Party.

Scotland’s election is one to watch closely this June.

The full text of Alajv3’s statment can be found here:

I have seen the SSD manifesto and while the SSD did get quite a lot of voters in OxBerk I think that it might take a while for them to gain a stable voter base in Scotland, but I might be wrong on this. I think that our voters may be disappointed in seeing that the SSD wants to repeal our nationalisation, it’s one of our key policies we have been working with for a while and we have seen a raise in the polls when we talked about them so that might be a loss for the SSD. Other than that I think that they are potential coalition partners, while we don’t agree on everything I am 100% sure that the Scottish Greens won’t get a majority (even if we wanted) and that we need to work with other parties to keep the work with a progressive Scotland going. I am a Social Democrat myself and I welcome that the Welsh Finance Minister have changed their mind and joined the better ideology. And the last thing I want to say is that while I do think that they probably are better for Scotland than some parties, I don’t think that a Welsh finance minister should come and tell me, the Scottish First Minister what to do. In a couple of terms when they are an established Scottish Party, fine, go ahead. But now, coming from England and Wales without having been a part of the Scottish Politics over the last years? No.

Alajv3

Tomorrow morning, protestors will take to the street in defiance over the Government’s ongoing plans to reform policing powers. Seen by some as a much-needed boost to our already strained law enforcement, and others as an assault on Democracy – Lord Henry John Temple, Baron Carrickfergus, explores the thin line between the rule of law, and authoritarianism.

Across the Country, the Opposition has been hard at work – in what may well be one of an ever increasingly rare example of them working together – to bring people into the streets in a day of protest against the Government’s planned policing reform. Opposition Leaders have made it clear that they stand against what they are branding ‘a Tear Gas Coalition’, keeping to their rhetoric that the right wing is somehow, always in the wrong. By contrast, the Government is peeling back the letter of the law, and examining the minutiae beneath, by way of offering justification for the reforms,  seemingly unaware that much of the general public has neither the time, nor the inclination, to set about lawyering the laws of the land.

Like it or not, ‘Tear Gas Coalition’ has captured the emotions of the British Public, and tomorrow will be the teller that shows to what extent this has been achieved.

Yet, just how accurate is the statement, and ought conservatives on all sides of the house – who purport to respect Law & Order – reconsider how they plan to vote on the final reading of this bill, in light of the concerns?

It cannot be denied that there are legitimate causes to desire the changes of outdated Acts, however – as has been pointed out by /u/ContrabannedMC (and others) on more than one occasion – not only is tear banned in the practise of war, but also, across the spectrum of police command, widely considered to not be of effective use. Yet, the Government continues onward, like a Bull in a China shop, revelling in their majority (which is only advanced by a poor turnout and lack of unity on the opposition benches) to press ahead, no compromise, and no compassion, being the name of the game.

It is no secret that, when I was in the lower House, I supported the bill, also submitting an amendment to remove the revocation of the tear gas restriction, and I maintain that it takes the correct steps to shore up the powers of the Police in dangerous times. However, one cannot pick and choose when one respects the rule of law.

The international community is clear, using tear gas on protestors is a blurs a very thin line in international law, and this element of the bill must be removed if it is to be passed in good conscience by the Conservatives and Libertarians who consider themselves to be respectful of the rule of law, in and of its entirety.

As such, in what feels uncharacteristic for me to say, until such as a time as the Government removes the revocation of the Tear Gas element of the Bill, and confirms – with legislation to support it – that Tear Gas will be illegal for use on the streets of the United Kingdom, I support tomorrows protests wholeheartedly.

Lord Henry John Temple is a member of the House of Lords, in which he sits as a Loyalist League Peer. He campaigns in Northern Ireland as part of the Democratic Unionist Party, having been a member of the LPUK (in which he was MP for Sussex) and NUP. A conservative commentator, views expressed here are his own.

This column was written for The Daily Telegraph by DUP Baron HenryJohnTemple of Carrickfergus as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors.

The leader of the Independent Social Democrats, Saunders16, today launched the manifesto of the Scottish Social Democrats, his grouping’s new Scottish devolved branch.

In a statement made at half nine on Tuesday Evening, the leader of the new group introduced the new grouping to the public. He noted his party’s success in the recent Oxfordshire and Berkshire by-election, where his party narrowly won out against the incumbent ContrabannedtheMC, a founding member of the People’s Movement. He explained this meant “there is still an appetite for the centre-left values that are under threat by the coalition government”.

The leader launched an attack on the Scottish Government, calling out the Greens on being complacent in their role and taking “their power for granted”, and on Duncs11, the Scottish leader for the Classical Liberals, critisizing him for “enabling” the government.

The manifesto, “More Unity, More Equality, More Success”, has been released in the run up to the Devolved Elections, which are due to take place on 13th June.

Economically speaking, the manifesto attacks the right-wing economics of the Classical Liberals and Conservatives, and supports a “fairer” and “simpler” income tax, with lower rates and wider tax brackets on all levels. The party wishes the replace council tax and non-domestic rates with a land value tax, which is something the Classical Liberal Party has passed through the Scottish Parliament.

The SSD aim to “stand up for scottish interests”, pushing for further devolution and “keeping the option open” for indyref2, citing Brexit and the Welfare Referedum as its main reasons for this nationalistic stance, but also recognises the “uncertainty and division” that a referendum would bring.

In public services, the SSD take a mixed view, both interested in free school meals and to stop the nationalisation of private hospitals. Saunders16 also wants Scotland to catch up with England in terms of the mental health reforms he introduced during the Liberal Government.

The party is seemingly committed to the enviornment, wishing to ban fracking in Scotland, to devolve a carbon tax so it can be at least £50 a tonne and to work across the Parliament to ensure Scotland meets environmental targets.

Finally, the SSD takes a liberal view in regards to social issues, attacking many recent government policies such as raising the voting age and the controversial Policing Bill, both introduced in a mass-submission of bills by ggeogg, Minister without Portfolio. The party opposes the existence of minimum sentences and favours rehabilitative methods over sentencing.

All in all, this is the sort of manifesto that was expected from the Social Democrats. It takes a centrist view on most matters, however struggles to entirely differentiate itself and make itself stand out, looking to become Scotland’s third way, as many parties have done before it.

Sir Duncs11, Leader of the Scottish delegation to Holyrood responded to a question from a Daily Telegraph reporter about the manifesto by saying:

I’m used to our economic policies being attacked. I disagree, but such is politics. What I will not be so polite about is the accusation of “enabling” the Greens in Government. My delegation have been a strong opposition throughout the term, holding them firmly to account. We’ve also passed numerous pieces of vital legislation, some of which as SSD policy, so their accusation we only talk about the union doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny.

Duncs11

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZhOeb0PPD6Q7PY1w7etEZeg4eqT7cLJW/view

Meta: This article was not written by model-pjr, the MP.

The age in our society where one is responsible for voting, being elected and maintaining positions in the government is one of enormous burden, and it is a burden that we should expect only of those that can be reasonably expected to be a fully functioning and participating member of society. While it is regrettable, the recent change to the voting age is not one that fulfils these criteria, and it cannot be said that the right will be exercised correctly on either their behalf or the behalf of the entire society at large. These are decisions that affect us all, and we should all strive to see how we can improve our voter base.

The idea that individuals can make decisions on behalf of our country is grounded in the fact that they have an understanding of the country, of our society, of the function of our government. In the modern age, this is something that is indisputably tied to education and experience. This fact may be depressing to those of younger age – nobody is disputing the tragedy and disparity those who feel disenfranchised may feel as a result. Their opinions on all things are not invalid; they are uninformed. Through no fault of any of them, the subset of those who have not experienced what it is like to work, what it is like to serve for their country, what it is like to experience a modicum of adulthood simply do not have the proper mindset to be deciding the path for all of our country, for all of our society.

In theory, the agreeability of having a statement of absolute suffrage is a vital and insurmountable key to democracy, something that all people accept and strive for. To those who have lived, who have worked, to those who have had their idealism tempered by reality, we understand that universal wide-reaching privileges like these may need to be withheld for some time.

Just as the right to damage the body with certain substances are withheld to those who we deem incapable of understanding or fully interpreting the risks, the right to damage society should be kept safe to those who are involved in it. We know the dangers of exploitation, we know the fear of those who contribute less than ourselves, we know that there are times when we must hold our nose and say “not yet” to responsibilities that will be a burden to a younger generation while doing the best we can on their behalf.

As we do not hold dear to our hearts the idea that someone that is 16 can be a CEO, an airline pilot, a Prime Minister, we should not also hold the idea that these individuals can uphold the ideal of safeguarding our democracy. This is a job that is the most important job of all citizens of the United Kingdom. It is a job that requires education, a job that requires experience, a job that requires citizenship and all the responsibilities that come with it. It is a job for those of age, and the age for that across the world is uniform with few exceptions.

As regrettable as it may be for those looking forward at a longer time in the shadow of these responsibilities, the country will be better for their sacrifice.

This piece was written for The Daily Telegraph by Conservative MP Anomaline as an opinion editorial. The views expressed are not necessarily representative of those of The Model Telegraph Media Group, its editors or its proprietors. The MTMG thanks Anomaline for their opinion editorial.

Anomaline is an incumbent MP for the South East.

I read the Baron Granthams OP-Ed in The Times with great interest as everyone I am sure many did owing his not inconsiderable expertise. His analysis of matters of the law is meticulous but in areas of morality and legitimacy I find his arguments much less persuasive and so following the debate in the house and questioning by the the luminaries of the House of Lords General Committee I wish to now take the case to the country.

But before I do I take issue with a number of points made in that Op-Ed, firstly the suggestion that Hirst should be seen as a floor. I content that Hirst as a ruling only sets out principles in which a parliament should consider limitations on the right to vote for prisoners. In this we see that Hirst isn’t a floor but instead boundary conditions upon a continuum of acceptable solutions. I shall set out later, why I my proposal sets bar where it is and also why parliament and not the courts needs to be the one to do the setting.

My last quam is the Lord Grantham’s suggestion that 50% of the house of commons does not support the proposal. This I fear is a weak argument, not only do neither of us know how MPs will vote but even if a majority of our elected representative are opposed to the bill then it is still right that they consider it and voter may evaluate them on that basis. And thirdly his calculation of over 50% of the house opposes prisoner votes relies on the LPUK opposing it. But I know very well from discussions with cabinet colleagues, and backbenchers across government as well as talks outside of government. That this bill has wide ranging support, and much to the consternation of the noble lord some members support an even harsher policy than the one that I am proposing.

But turning to the substance of the question, I feel it is inaccurate to speak of suffrage as “universal” in any context while retaining complete accuracy, indeed the word does not appear in Protocol 1 Article 3 for very good reasons it is wholly unworkable legally, and it was purposely excluded from the text by British negotiators no less! In no state is the right to vote enjoyed by citizens without qualifications, and there are many different legitimate grounds for qualifying the right in exceptional circumstances. I believe prisoners who have committed a sufficiently serious crime to have been handed a long custodial sentence to be one of these circumstances.

The qualifications put in place required wildly differ from state to state as does circumstances, culture and history. With respect to prisoners even within signatories of the ECHR there is huge variety, some justifications such as France allows a trial judge to disenfranchise based upon the proportionality of the crime, Germany applies a system whereby crimes against the state and democracy are punished with disenfranchisement, in Italy prisoners with life sentences may be permanently disenfranchised and lesser sentences result in shorter periods of disenfranchisement and Malta disenfranchises all prisoners sentenced for a period greater than one year. And there are many more unique systems as well as other countries which like us currently have full suffrage for prisoners.

This is all to say, this is not a question of law, the ECHR did not impose upon Britain an obligation to pass the Human Rights Extension Act 2015 it only it explicitly stated in its conclusion that;

“it will be for the United Kingdom Government in due course to implement such measures as it considers appropriate to fulfil its obligations to secure the right to vote in compliance with this judgment.”

The obligation was to simply bring forward legislative proposals that fulfilled the courts requirements for proportionality and a legitimate aim.

What the Human Rights Extension Act 2015 did was catapult Britain from one extreme to another. Parliament has never been given the opportunity to consider anything but these two extremes and I am glad that the proposals that I have brought before the house will remedy this lack of consideration.

The government’s plan will give the house an opportunity to consider for the first time, legislation that keeps us a compliant member of the ECHR, maintaining our standing on human rights internationally. While rationally qualifying the right to vote.

This is not something that should be ignored or left to the courts indeed the courts themselves have told us that they cannot decide where on the spectrum of possibilities we should be. In the landmark Hirst ruling the ECtHR itself said:

The Court accepts that this is an area in which a wide margin of appreciation should be granted to the national legislature in determining whether restrictions on prisoners’ right to vote can still be justified in modern times and if so how a fair balance is to be struck.

European Court of Human Rights

The current system is patiently unacceptable it to me, David Cameron said the thought of prisoner votes made him feel sick. While I am not queasy I feel a deep moral sense that those who break the law and violate the norms of our society, the rights of others or our shared institutions should not be in a position to make the law. My thesis is that laws and rights only have meaning within the context of a community that accepts them, the most serious offenders have ignored those and caused great damage. They should not automatically qualify to vote, doing so retains agency over the lives they have wreaked.

But let’s be honest Dave wasn’t physically sick at the thought of people convicted of misdemeanors voting. What’s galling and difficult for many good decent Britons to swallow is the idea that the absolute universal inclusion of prisoners gives the same voting rights to unapologetic murderers as for them. This sense of equity between two people who should not be treated as equal because of their different choices and actions, erodes our civic responsibility people see this and question the value of the right to vote. “If that person is worthy of the right to vote, why should I bother? Or why should I put time into making a good choice?” This harms our democracy and the rule of law.

Rationally qualifying the right to vote can be a powerful symbol against democratic malaise, that reinforces the value of the right to vote by showing that we remove it in certain circumstances because certain people should not exercise it – and we go to the bother because it is a valuable part of our democracy.

The social rejection of serious crime reflects a moral line in the sand that safeguards the social contract and the rule of law. This point is underlined by how we police in this country, we do not police by SWAT cars or force, we police by consent, working with communities not suppressing them. It is critical for this approach to work that crime is socially condemned and that we maintain buy into society. The promotion of civic responsibility may be abstract or symbolic concept, but it is a primary goal of government and fundamental to our society it should not be looked down upon for being abstract or symbolic.

Prisoner votes threatens this balance, it fails to attach a civic consequence to serious crime to clearly condemn it. It treats prisoners as universally worthy of voting and influencing our society when clearly there is variation and nuance.

For these reasons our proposals take a middle road between blanket bans and a blanket right to vote. We will stop people with long custodial sentences of over six years from voting, this will prevent those who committed serious crimes and violated significantly the rights of their fellow citizens from being able to vote.

We also note that forgiveness is a key conservative value and a fundamental purpose of the justice system aside from reparation or punishment is rehabilitation. Therefore we have included in the proposal a mechanism by which prisoners who are sentenced to greater than a six year term may apply for re-enfranchisement provided that they meet criteria such as being remorseful. We think this is a fair compromise and we do not wish to prevent prisoners from having an opportunity for civic engagement provided that they are on the path towards rehabilitation and indeed hope that this may incentivise some prisoners to more strongly engage in rehabilitation programs out of a desire to reacquire the right to vote. And irregardless of the success of our proposals in the voting lobbies, we as a government are committed to reducing crime through rehabilitation. We will reduce overcrowding and improve access to prison libraries. We might not feel that all prisoners deserve the right to vote absolutely, but we equally believe that every prisoner should be given the best opportunity to turn their lives around.

In another in a line of leaks around the Coalition Negotiations, The Daily Telegraph can reveal the details of the TLC coalition deal.

A copy of a deal, which was sent to The Daily Telegraph by a source who has asked to remain anonymous, details the Cabinet structure, policy and code of conduct of a possible TLC government (comprising the Labour Party, the Green Party, the Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru).

A Red Cabinet

The Cabinet, which is Labour Led seems to be a pretty standard cabinet, with not too many changes to its structure. The TLC has replaced the Department for Exiting the European Union with a Department for European Relations (which it is calling a Great Office of State) and has also introduced a Secretary of State for Democratic Reform, which has seemingly been merged with the Cabinet Office. A very notable posting is the Equalities Secretary, something which the TLC has been pushing for in a while.

The Department for Business, Energy and Climate change has been split (with a new Mutuals Minister also being created), while the Department for International Trade and International Development has been merged.

The new deal would see WillShakespeare99 as Prime Minister, with Estoban06, the recently appointed Leader of the Liberal Democrats as his deputy.

One notable post missing from the cabinet is the controversial Cornwall position, which was created by the TLC as a shadow position towards the end of last term. There is also a Minister without Portfolio, although it is not revealed who this is.

In response to the Cornwall question, the Shadow Secretary of State for Cornwall in the last opposition said

I am deeply disappointed that some coalition elements did not agree with the Liberal Democrats and the Greens on the issue of Cornwall, and as such vetoed the future existence of my cabinet role. I still consider myself an ardent fighter for Cornish rights, and the Liberal Democrats are committed to providing a fair deal for Cornwall.

throwawayravenclaw MP

This follows some changes made by the Conservative-led coalitions in their various leaked deals, with the splitting of BECC and the upgrading of Equalities to a full cabinet post (albeit in the case of the right wing governments, as a part of the Culture Department).

The possible future PM or Leader of the Opposition, Will Shakespeare told The Daily Telegraph:

If the reports about a so-called “Blurple” deal are right then we will be heading to Official Opposition tonight, but I hold out hope and nothing is confirmed until it’s official. I am extremely confident that if we get the opportunity we can form a good, hard working, productive, and progressive Government that will achieve and deliver for the British people and serve them well.

WillShakespeare99

In response to questions from The Daily Telegraph, Estoban06, the possible future Deputy Prime Minister said:

I’m confident we have a unifying deal between ourselves, Labour, the Greens and Plaid. Our ability to form government will all depend on parliamentary arithmetic, but rest assured should we get a chance at Government we will serve the nation to the best of our ability. Cabinet positions are divided proportionally, as such I’m perfectly happy with the amounts between the parties. We don’t have a Cornwall position as at the minute it would serve no real purpose, but we have committed to examining Cornish devolution in our deal, and if devolution occurs we will create a post dealing with it, but there is no real need for it right now.

Estoban06, Leader of the Liberal Democrats
The Daily Telegraph notes that its copy of the deal does not include policies on Cornwall. The questions were as follows: “I have received a copy of your deal. Are you confident in your ability to form a government? Are you happy with such a Labour dominated cabinet? Can you comment on the lack of existance of a Cornwall Department?”

The Leader of the Green Party said:

I am fully confident that we have the policies this country needs, though I worry that the Tories may betray their voters with an alliance with the LPUK. I think we negotiated some great environmental policies. Labour and the Lib Dems were extremely receptive to our stance on the environment.

zombie-rat

Meanwhile, ViktorHR, the leader of Plaid Cymru said, in response to a question of whether the deal does enough for Wales said:

Yes, and I am happy to be able to contribute to it. Plaid Cymru and the TLC have great relations and have been able to agree on a number of topics. Wales will be getting more funding per head similar to the Scottish model, the TLC has agreed to back the Welsh Government plan for another devolution referendum, and many more project fundings can be expected.

Some Key Policies

Brexit: The TLC will negotiate a Ukraine+ deal while also re-negotiating with countries with whom we have trade deals through the EU, promising Parliament a vote on any treade deal.

Democratic Reform: The TLC look to ‘explore alternatives’ to the Lords, introduce more Proportional Representation and create a codified constitution.

Economy: The TLC hope to measure ‘Gross National Happiness’ and ‘Adjusted National Product’ to replace various current measures, restructure RBS, cur beer duty and raise inheritance tax and carbon tax.

Home: Hire new police officers, offer asylum to LGBT+ and expand Refugee Resettlement from Syria.

Education: Charge tax on Private Schools, establish a ‘school digitisation task force’, promote apprenticeships and physical education and reduce examinations.

Energy/Climate Change: 50% emuissions by 2025, 99% emissions by 2030 (no further details given), ban diesel/petrol cars within 11 years, introduce foreign power tariffs, invest in renewable energy and introduce an Environmental Bill of Rights

Business: Introduce a Workers’ New Deal, allow employee buyouts, nationalise Royal Mail and extend Freedom of Information to private businesses.

Transport: A large transport plan (called ‘Getting Britain Moving’, the same name the Tories used in their manifesto), electrify Welsh railways and close London City Airport.

Housing/Local Government: Repeal Right to Buy, build 300,000 council homes a year and maintain the Green Belt,

Devolved Nations: Introduce ‘Devolution on Demand’, deliver on the Welfare referendum, increase funding per head in Wales and increase devolution in England (offering it to any area with less than 1 million people).

Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: Introduce restrictions on Newspaper ownership, restrict ticket touts, increase supporter rights in footbal clubs and introduce spending declarations on charities.

Equalities: Explore representation of women and minority groups in Parliament (no further details)

Estoban06 assured that the TLC have ‘the approximate cost’ of their policies, and that the Liberal Democrats ‘ look forward to having a chance to either filling the spot of Chancellor or else opposing them.’

In response to questions about enviornmental policy in the deal, the Leader of the Green Party said:

I am fully confident that we have the policies this country needs, though I worry that the Tories may betray their voters with an alliance with the LPUK. I think we negotiated some great environmental policies. Labour and the Lib Dems were extremely receptive to our stance on the environment.

zombie-rat

Meanwhile, ViktorHR, the leader of Plaid Cymru said, in response to a question of whether the deal does enough for Wales said:

Yes, and I am happy to be able to contribute to it. Plaid Cymru and the TLC have great relations and have been able to agree on a number of topics. Wales will be getting more funding per head similar to the Scottish model, the TLC has agreed to back the Welsh Government plan for another devolution referendum, and many more project fundings can be expected.

There are many more policies in the document, which are available to be read in full here.

In all, this looks like a standard left-wing agreement, however the TLC would not be able to match up to a deal involving the Conservatives and any other party.

For now, it remains to be seen who the next government will involve.