Telegraph/Yougov Exit Poll: LPUK on top as Solidarity surge.

Results here:

A nationwide exit poll, conducted by the Telegraph in conjunction with Yougov, shows a parliament fractured, with the LPUK and Solidarity emerging as the two largest parties, while the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats suffer crushing defeats.

The LPUK will be the largest party in the next parliament, holding 38 seats, a gain of 6 from their notional results last election. This gain is caused by an unprecedented surge across constituency seats, taking 11 seats from the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. The party’s pole position leaves them in the driving seat for government formation and makes Friedmanite19 the likely candidate to be Britain’s next Prime Minister.

The rise of Solidarity this term has been stunning and yet few could quite have expected this result. Solidarity will come second, with 30 seats, a gain of 20 from their notional results last election. The surge comes almost entirely from regional lists, with the party taking close to a majority of the list seats in a number of regions. This result, coupled with a collapse in Labour support, marks Solidarity as the new dominant party of the left. Solidarity will also win two constituencies, Northern Ireland and Mancs City and South, while it will lose the seat of Lancs South and its leader motelblinds will fail in his attempt to take the seat of Cheshire.

The Conservatives have been decimated according to this result, falling 21 seats from their notional results last election to 26. This is the first election in years to see the Conservatives not in top spot and will likely bring into question the leadership of Padanub. His party sees a spate of constituencies taken by the LPUK, including Kent, Lincolnshire and Cheshire, while the LoTO will lose his battle in West Yorkshire.

The governing Labour party will suffer a meltdown result on par with the Irish Labour Party’s collapse in 2016, with Labour seeing its MPs halved from 34 notional seats at dissolution to just 17 now. Labour are left holding just three constituencies: Essex, North London and Central London. The PM will lose in Clydeside to the LPUK, and will likely find their position untenable given the wipeout suffered by her party on a national scale. Make no mistake, Labour is a party in a death spiral based on these results.

An impressive campaign sees Coalition! take fifth position, edging out the Lib Dems, with C! set to take 14 seats. The party sees major constituency wins in London, East Midlands and the Southeast as well as strong results on the list. This result puts C! in the valuable position of potential kingmaker in a divided Commons,

The Liberal Democrats follow their traditional “Big Three” counterparts in having a deeply disappointing election, arriving in 6th place with just 12 seats, a fall of 11. Questions over electoral strategy and the decision to run just 16 candidates will be asked, as the party faces into a period of deep soul-searching.

The Progressive Workers Party have achieved a result they will be very proud of, taking 9 seats, tripling their notional result from last time out of 3. Impressive campaign showings see them take Cambridgeshire as well as a number of lists in several highly targeted regions.

In a good night for the smaller groupings, the regionalist WNP will take 2 seats on Welsh list, while TIG will win a seat in the Northeast list as will pro-european Voices For Europe in East England.

6 seats have been marked as tossups. They have been given to the party we view as most likely to win them, however these seats will likely be very close. These include Clydeside, a tossup between the LPUK and Labour, Upper Severn, a tossup between the LPUK and Conservatives, North and Mid Wales, a tossup between the LPUK and Solidarity as well as East London, a tossup between C! and Labour.

This parliament will be more fractured than at any point in modern British history, with 10 groupings holding parliamentary representation. The path to coalition is narrow, with the only realistic options for majority government at this moment in time appearing to be the LPUK and Conservatives in combination with Coalition! or the Lib Dems or both. These results make clear that Britain may well be facing into 6 months of deep political uncertainty. They also drive home a realignment in British politics, with the LPUK, Solidarity and C! overtaking their traditional counterparts on the right, left and centre of British politics.

A New Government for a New Era; The Libertarians

There can be no denying that this election has been dominated thus far by two parties; not the convention ‘Labour’ vs ‘Conservative’ debate, but instead a slugging match between the Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom, and the left-wing Solidarity Party. Both of them promise startlingly different approaches to the future of this country, and role of the Government in it, and this article I will lay out to Telegraph Readers, why I think the Libertarians are the way to go.

Without a doubt the Libertarians have a proud record of delivering a strong tax package to the people of the United Kingdom, not only through their consistent approach to increasing the tax free allowance, but also through their direct tackling of ‘sin taxes’, alongside handing down a £1,000.00 reduction in National Insurance Contributions in the most resent budget. Perhaps harking back to the words of the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, before the move to the present electoral system, David Cameron, who laid out his views on taxation exceptionally clearly, the Libertarians have not deviated from their line that the money people earn, is theirs, not the Governments.

Indeed, this is a persistent line throughout this new manifesto, which opens on a commitment to ‘fiscal discipline’, a robust line to take as the country already holds one of the most competitive tax regimes in Europe. In their agenda for Government, the Libertarians outline a desire to move to a simpler tax system with a reduced number of bands, something that is almost certain to attract the interests of businessmen, and workers, up and down the country.

I believe that if people have worked hard and earned their own money, they should be able to spend it how they like. It’s your money, not the Government’s.

Former PM, David Cameron

Of perhaps greater importance is the Libertarians plan to slice VAT down to 15% – citing a desire to see a boost to economic growth and consumer spending. With cheaper shopping bills under this new policy, the VAT should win many friends across the lower and middle earners of the country, who – from their campaign messaging – appears to be their target voter base. Partner this with an ambitious scaling back of the current rates of alcohol and tobacco duties, which the party brands as ‘regressive’, and they have a tantalizing array of tax reductions on offer.

Reforms to Public Spending

Perhaps in a more radical shift, the Libertarians have also outlined their plans to put a control on public expenditure, harkening back to the Reagan-Thatcher style approach to viewing Government programs with some degree of skepticism. Seeking to lower the debt-to-gdp ratio in each budget, the Libertarians clearly strive for a small, concentrated state, that can intervene where necessary in the lives of its people.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!

Ronald Reagan

Promising to privatize the BBC, in an increasingly more competitive online space for media, Friedmanite19 commits to a scaling back of wasteful Government spending across the board, with a sound economic approach that would bring billions of wasteful spending back under control.

One of the programs facing the axe this time around is the Childcare policy that the Tories bought in. A middle class perk, that effectively drove the cost up on all families in the country, so they could support middle class families who did not ask for the support in the first place, would bring spending down to ‘Cameron Era Levels’, something set to get the heart racing for many.

All in the Libertarians promise a sleek state, with a low tax burden across the board, promising hundreds in tax cuts on the lowest earners, whilst unshackling the British economy in the process.

For businessmen, workers, homeowners and pensioners – the libertarian manifesto is one to get behind.

A Plan for the Environment

But it is not just on economic matters that the Libertarian Party have a strong platform to go on. Seeing nuclear power as the path to a a sustainable energy sector, the party says it will partner with the private sector to attract investment, as we transition into a green economy.

Environment Spokesperson, Womble commented saying “We have always had a bold approach to conserving the natural world, which, when partnered with the plans we have for rewilding (which we are seeing in Wales at the moment) ensure that we leave a greener and more pleasant land for the next generation.”

Whilst the election rages on, the LPUK continue to campaign on their tested lines, presenting a fully costed plan for the future of this country, that we would be wise to back.

The Marquess of Cearnarfon is a Libertarian Peer and Candidate in the General Election. The views here are his and his alone.

National Polling Reveals Strong LPUK as Labour and Lib Dems Lose Ground

This week Telegraph has received results from our national polling conducted in 6 constituencies across the country by a joint Telegraph/YouGov team. Overall the results paint a picture of a strong standing LPUK that leads in key seats followed by a Consertative Party who though weakened maintain a good position in several seats. Labour however appears key with them running the risk of losing seats and eroding support as traditionally more left-leaning voters turn to the rising Solidarity which has recently outplaced as the third-largest party in national polling. Labour will need key Liberal Democrat and Solidarity endorsements to remain competitive and stand a shot at remaining competitive in the seats they currently hold. 


The results for Surrey are not surprising with the long-time LPUK MP for Surrey, cthulhuiscool2 commanding a nearly unbeatable lead polling at 38.70%, with an edge of 22 points over the next highest competitor. The next highest party are the Tories polling at 16% followers by Solidarity at 13.97% and Labour in only 12%. As the election approaches it can be safely said that Surrey will remain Purple for the foreseeable future. 


Merseyside was one of the tightest and continuously fought seats in teh last election and it seeks to continue that tradition. Last time former Labour leader Akko fought off a very aggressive LPUK campaign for the seat, winning the election on a razor margin. However, now with Akko having left Labour for Solidarity, the seat stands to flip. The LPUK have recently doubled their efforts to gain support in the region with them hosting their party conference in Liverpool. Perhaps thanks to that effort and their gain in national polling now the LPUK sit at 31% to Labour’s 28%. If the LPUK manages to secure a Tory endorsement who currently in Merseyside it seems it will be dire for Labour indeed. Solidarity and the Liberal Democrats poll at 9.59% and 6.78% respectively, meaning even if Labour manages to secure both of these endorsements it will still be a tough fight. Of course, such endorsements are not guaranteed by any means with the possibility of a challenge from Solidarity’s seeking to retake their former seat. 

Birmingham, Solihull, and Coventry

This seat currently held by the Liberal Democrats looks like it might run away from the grasp. The LPUK are polling at 29%, with Labour and Lib Dems polling behind equally at 17%. No doubt the Liberal Democrats’ performance here has been hurt by their fall nationally with the party dropping in the single digits. In order to retain this seat, the Liberal Democrats will need at least a Labour endorsement to fight off the LPUK, and potentially backing from Soldarty as well if the LPUK secure a Tory endorsement. Also making this seat interesting the strong polling from Coalition at 10%, whatever party they choose to endorse here might end up with the final edge on election day. 

North Yorkshire

One of the tighter races this election cycle as the Conservative incumbent Shadow Chancellor /u/ToastinRussian finds themselves within touching distances of the Libertarian Party, with both parties polling at 27.78 and 26.50 percent respectively. Overall the Telegraph believes that the outcome of this race will be determined by third-party endorsement as none of the left of center parties has a shot at winning this one if this round of polls is to be believed.

Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

Currently, a LibDem seat however come election day that is highly likely to change, with the LPUK polling at a commanding lead of over 29% putting them 6 points ahead of the Conservative Party, while the Liberal Democrats find themselves in fourth place behind Solidarity. It could be a three-way horse race with the LPUK, Tories, and Liberal Democrats running. If the LibDems secure key endorsements from Labour and other smaller parties they may be able to hold on but if the race gets more complicated and these parties decide to run instead, the LibDems might stand no chance in Bedfordshire. The Liberals could be in real trouble should this constituency be a sign of things to come.

Upper Severn 

Up last is the only truly safe Conservative constituency in this round-up with the Conservative Party holding a comfortable 7 point lead over their Libertarian competitors rank 2nd at 19.5%. Of note is the Solidarity party in third place at 13%. This seat again might be a competitive three-way race if Solidarity or one of the other parties manage to secure endorsements from each other. However, in the case that no party secures endorsements or one of them goes to either the Tories or Libertarians, it looks to be an open and shut case. 

Overall the picture across the country seems to the portrait of a gaining LPUK and steady Tory who have settled in a secure second place. The LPUK led in 4 of the seats we polled with the Tories leading in the other two places. This also means a grim situation for Labour has LPUK make inroads into traditionally ground Labour seats while they continue to lose more left-leaning supporters to Solidarity. Labour will need key endorsements from the Liberal Democrats and Solidarity to remain in contention for key swing races. Solidarity also stands in a strong position to give endorsements and secure their own races with the potential to capture many list seats. The Liberal Democrats meanwhile stand in a similar position to Labour but a weaker one with their collapsing public support and recent scandals which have hurt their reputation as the party that can be trusted. 

Link to full results

In defence of the budget deal – a positive vision for our economy

What is the red Budget Box, is Gladstone's 1860 leather briefcase still  used and what is in the Chancellor's despatch box?

Written by Harry Johnson for the Telegraph 

If you read any of the most recent  Solidarity or SATUP press on the recent budget deal between the LPUK and the government you’d think that the worst has to come to the worst and that just like Alastair Darling in 2009  the  Labour government is going to “cut deeper than Thatcher”. Yet the reality requires one to look no further than the joint statement issued by /u/Friedmanite19  and the Chancellor /u/NGspy.

To quote the Chancellor themselves “These benefits shall ensure that the government has enough to fund and build on the programs that the government has offered, including Plant!, ensuring the distribution of laptops to our school kids, more amounts in block grants for Wales and Northern Ireland, and a general increase in defense spending by 1.1 billion pounds annually.” Clearly then anyone calling this budget “austere” is either lying or does not understand what austerity policies actually are. This is especially true in the case of Wales, which thanks to the F4 deal have been left in a state of austerity.

That is not to mention the host of progressive tax cuts aimed at our SMEs and the working people of this country. National insurance has for too long remained an unfair burden on the Britons who found themselves hit by a 12% stealth tax despite the lowest tax rates under our deal this will no longer be the case as the NIC threshold is to be matched with the personal allowance so that the tax code remains both progressive and transparent.  Sin taxes are another positive of our deal. Under the previous Conservative budget, we would have had some of the highest rates in Europe, merely to punish people for what they considered to be a wrong choice.  These policies, unlike the series of tax hikes proposed by hidden Solidarity, ushered in by their preferred economic theory will put hundreds of pounds back into the pockets of working families.

The same can also be said about our small and medium enterprises, which will be sure to benefit from a 2.5% reduction in their tax bill. x. Over half the costs of the corporation tax are borne by the workers themselves therefore it is only fair for us to push for its reduction. The Chancellor’s flagship dividend imputation policy will be yet another boon to our entrepreneurs and workers as the burden of double taxation will be lifted from them.

We were told this parliament would get nothing done after the Blurple government collapsed however our great budget deal gets parliament working and working for you. Regressive sin taxes down, ordinary families keeping more of what they earn by slashing NIC’s, a fairer block grant system. This budget delivers for the lowest paid and low-income households and makes sound economic sense. Whilst others have been sniping at the sidelines, the government and Libertarians have been working hard to finalize the budget tables and draft a budget that puts money into the pockets of working families. 

 The only losers from this budget deal are solidarity and their hard-left ideology. They no doubt want this government to get nothing done so they could stoke up resentment among the electorate in a vain attempt to try to boost their seat share. Their whole ideology revolves around sowing discontent and polarising the electorate after all.

 The Chancellor has no doubt taken the right decision to get through his flagship policies of dividend imputation and SME cuts by working across the aisle with the British people being the winners.

Budget 2021: The Key Points

The Budget box: a history of the Chancellor's red briefcase
-NGSpy leaves number 11 Downing Street to present his first budget

NGSpy will be presenting his first budget to the House of Commons which is expecting to sail through the House of Commons with the support of the Libertarian Party UK. If it passes it will be the first non Conservative budget to pass in recent times and signals end to the Conservative Parties influences to the nations finances for the time being. The Chancellor has defeated all the odds and his critics by reaching a budget agreement and will no doubt be elated as he sips his whisky.  However, what does the budget mean for you?

A tax cut for millions

One of the headline policies of the budget is changes to National insurance contributions which will take many of the lowest paid workers out of paying NIC’s all together as the Chancellor brings the payment of NIC’s in line with the personal allowance. Ordinary working families could see a tax cut of up to £1,000 and many will no longer have to pay NIC’s.

The budget also puts the brakes on tax rises proposed by the Clegg coalition meaning that tax rate will be frozen at 17%,39.5% and 42% meaning that from next year working people will not pay more in income tax. 

Cheaper pints

The passage of the budget will mean the next time you go to the pub you drinks will be cheaper. The budget changes the way alcohol is taxed, there will now be a consistent approach to alcohol taxation with alcohol being taxed on the amount of ethanol in a drink. The budget sets the rate a flat rate of 9p. This budget will be handing out an £8bn tax cut on alcohol. Pubs will no doubt be celebrating and Britons will be able to have a drink without having to pay high rates of alcohol duty.

The budget also delivers lower tobacco duty and signals a reversal to the previous budget’s approach to tobacco taxation. Pundits hear /u/model-mili is elated.  Tobacco Duty will be halved and smokers across the country will be grateful to the Chancellor for easing the financial burden of regressive taxes.

Increased deprivation grants for devolved administrations

The budget delivers increased block grants in line with the Holtham commission, something that the Libertarian Party and others in the House of Commons have been calling for. Devolved administrations will receive money as result of the changes by the Chancellor and will have more money to spend or to cut taxes in their respective devolved budgets. 

SME Tax cut and dividend imputation

Small businesses earning under £20,000,000 profits will see a fall in the level of corporation tax meaning they can retain more of their profits to invest. This was one of the Chancellor’s key promises through the term and this budget delivers it. In order to avoid a steep increase in the marginal tax rate, larger firms will also receive a corporation tax cut but the new corporation tax system will be progressive.

Another key policy that has been flouted by the Chancellor of dividend imputation features in the budget. The policy will allow corporation to claim tax credits and will loosen the burden of taxation of those who receive dividends. This move will be welcomed by shareholders and pension funds across the country. The Chancellor argues it removes the impact of double taxation in the tax system.

A boost for defence

Since last term, higher defence spending has been a hot topic in Westminster. The budget delivers a gradual increase in defence spending but at a lower level than the Blurple government planned. The budget increased the annual defence budget by £1.1bn in the upcoming financial year with defence spending rising to 2.3% gradually in 2024/2025. The extra funding will help fund the recent defence review.

DECC funding and a cycling fund

The Liberal Democrats have delivered key pledges including a cycling fund which was in their manifesto and the Queen’s manifesto. Northern Womble has also benefited from a budgetary error which had double spending for DECC due to confusion over funding allocations to the department of Business and DECC. The budget delivers a £10bn fund to tackle climate change alongside changes to the tax system to make the country greener. £10bn is a substantial sum of money by all accounts and no doubt will be championed as a win for the Lib Dems going into the election.

Deficit to fall with Debt to GDP to stabilise

The budget deficit is expected to peak next year at 2022/2023 before steadily falling due to savings in childcare and the Chancellor’s targeted tax rises on LVT. The budget corrects some errors in the previous Clegg with non-departmental budgets meaning public sector borrowing is higher than we thought. The government’s plan tackle the deficit moderately with Debt-GDP stabilising and ending up lower in 2024 compared to 2020 at 83.98% of GDP.

Solidarity – The Party so opposed to the Lords unless it benefits them [Op-Ed]

House of Lords | British government | Britannica

Recently we saw /u/chainchompsky1 take to the press over the House of Lords because he is angry and rattled that people call out his hypocrisy. 

The Lords is undemocratic Solidarity tell us, but time and time again Solidarity peers send back legislation passed by the democratically elected house, something they believe shouldn’t happen. Take the FTPA repeal or other common sense legislation, they keep amending and sending it back. In their ideal system this legislation passed by the elected commons would go to Royal Assent.

Solidarity are effectively signaling they are happy to be undemocratic- in their own view if it benefits the cause of the radical left.

> If we were to give it to them, nothing would get better for the pro democracy movement, quite worse in fact.

If the 13 Solidarity peers left the chamber, Prescription Charges would have Royal Assent and bills such as the Child Care Enhancement bill would have had Royal Assent faster. I am sure there are many other examples of bills passed by the elected Commons that would have Royal Assent faster if solidarity peers left instead of trying to hold it up. So once again according to their own logic things would get better for the so called ‘pro-democracy’ movement. But when it comes to holding up right-wing legislation they see themselves as some sort of experts in a belief they are right so they are justified to over rule the democratically elected representatives of the House of Commons.

Crossbench peer LeChevalierMal-Fait expressed concern at the “block voting” by Solidarity Peers who receive suggestions to vote a particular way which few have deviated from according to the recent house voting record. Mr Mal-Fait said he fears that the Lords risks losing its trust and independent image if this continues. 

The paradox being that Solidarity as a party opposed to the institution’s very existence has no incentive to abide by the norms that hold the Lords within Britain’s constitutional settlement whereby under the Salisbury convention Lords would not block legislation with a clear popular mandate. They use their peers in the Lords to pursue maximal power above all else.

If one believes in the House Lords they would not take part or if they did, they would not attempt to frustrate legislation from the democratically elected house. But Solidarity has no principle, let’s remember chainchompsky’s position changes depending on who’s in government – we saw this with the state banquet. The same solidarity parties MP who said they would not vote on matters not relating to Northern Ireland to only flip flop for the goal of political power.

Solidarity’s participation in the Lords shows they have no principle and desire for only one thing- political power and influence. They are finding it hard to cope that a budget was created without them and despite their rising poll numbers, other parties do not want to work with them. As the exceptionally based Henry John Temple Foundation pointed out Solidarity are only concerned with one thing- control, control over our legislative chambers, and control over the lives of British people, even if they admit they are being undemocratic and control over your lives with their hard-left agenda which will wipe out your savings and tax you into oblivion. If a party is willing to admit to using methods they themselves consider to be undemocratic, in order to maximise their political power, can you imagine what a Solidarity government would do to further their pursuit of power? A truly chilling thought.

The Welsh Unity Government: Let’s take a look at the Cabinet

After a heated series of debates around who will become the next First Minister of Wales, Greejatus, the Marquess of Bexley and member for Aberavon has emerged as the victory. Leading an unlikely coalition, Greejatus recently announced a new Cabinet, and here at the Telegraph we took the opportunity to review the selection.

Things Donald Rumsfeld actually said this week – Foreign Policy
Greejatus, First Minister of Wales, according to a poll of the Welsh Government

First Minister (IND)

With the position of first minster, a post decided by the Senedd itself, occupied by Greejatus, the tone has already been set for the political agenda of the next term. During the debates, Greejatus made a point of ensuring that it was clearly communicated that his government would be “one built on teamwork and compromise, offering a nonpartisan approach to the problems faced by the people of Wales”. However, this does not deter from the fact that Greejatus himself as a sporadic political past, dominated by his tenure as Chairman of the right-wing Libertarian Party, during which time he held several Government posts in a Conservative-Libertarian coalition.

A self-described fan of ‘small government’ and of ‘protecting individual freedom and liberty’, he seems an apt choice for a coalition made up of fiscal conservatives and freedom lovers. However; in less public discussions, Greejatus has made clear that he believes firmly in localism, and believes there is an – albeit limited – role for government to play at this level, hence is winning over of the PPUK, who form a key component of the coalition.

Helena Bonham Carter Has Problems With 'The Crown' Fiction
Deputy First Minister, and Environment Minister, Rhys.

Deputy First Minister & Environment Minister (LD)

Holding the second highest ranked position in this Unity Government is a member of the Liberal Democrats, and a long-time stalwart of Welsh politics, Rhys.

Currently serving in Westminster as a Secretary of State, Rhys is no stranger to cross-party work, having stood side-by-side with members of the Libertarian and the Conservative parties in Wales, in the past. Of note in this appointment is the inclusion of the Environmental portfolio as part of the role of Deputy First Minister, something sources close to the new administration confirm ‘will not change’ and ‘shows that environmentalism is the top of the governments agenda’.

Why Did Bob Iger Step Down at Disney? The CEO Explains
Sam Gibs (left) with his chief of staff T-twich N-nostrile (right)

Finance and Public Works (CON)

Serving as the Leader of the Welsh Conservative Party, Sam Gibs steps into a new role which expands on the role of finance minister to give the position general oversight over the sponsorship of ‘public works’ across Wales.

The position, which puts the Conservatives in control of the formation of the Welsh Budget, puts Sam Gibs and the Tories in the third highest ranked position in the Government. It is worth noting that the Conservatives also hold the most cabinet positions, and – early reports indicate – the main drive of the government this term will be focused on tax liberalization, with the intention to reduce the burden of taxation on the lowest earners, and make it easier to do business in Wales.

Sam Gibs has been reported to have been in frequent meetings with the new First Minister, and the PPUK leader in Wales, with insiders informing the Telegraph that many of these discussions have focused around support for small businesses, and local government – alongside a grassroots approach to welfare and poverty alleviation.

Michael Gove becomes eighth Tory MP to officially join leadership race to  succeed Theresa May - CityAM : CityAM
Justice Minister, BrexitGlory

Justice Minister (CON)

Considered by many to be the best looking man in Westminster, there can be little denying why BrexitGlory so quickly snapped up the job as Justice Minister in Wales.

With reports showing that the position was initially intended to go to far-left Plaid member, JGM – who apparently had already started drawing up executive orders – it would have come as a shock to all to see a Unity Coalition placing the leader of the ‘Wales Says No’ campaign in the hot seat for Justice.

This appointment shows the Welsh Government is serious about its plans to heal the political divides in Wales, with the First Ministers office commenting directly saying:

We are very excited to see BrexitGlory, a consummate public servant, taking the position of Justice Minister. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the transition period, we felt it best to bring someone in who new the importance of respecting the democratic outcome of the vote, as well as being able to point out some of the transitional issues we could face.

Furthermore, the First Minister themselves will serve in this department, with daily meetings with the Minister to ensure the transition takes place quickly, and with maximum effect.

Office of the First Minister
Everton 'issue' with Chris Matheson MP forces shareholder event switch -  Liverpool Echo
Model Eddy, pictured above on the phone to the Scottish Tories

Communities and Local Government (PPUK)

Perhaps the biggest shock in the formation of this government was the inclusion of the PPUK, a party that was assumed to vote for the left-wing coalition being formed. Indeed, this was such a shock that members of the Labour and Plaid took to the press for weeks, attacking the PPUK for their decision to ‘break ranks’. However, in the spirit of a Unity Government, sources close to the First Minister can confirm that the PPUK, and the First Minister, have had consistent talks – mostly regarding local government and welfare provision – for several months, long before the formation of the Unity Government was broached.

With Eddy taking this position, and Harlus assuming the role of ‘Head of the Anti-Poverty Taskforce’ (which reports directly to the First Minister), the Unity Governments positioning as a cross-party approach to the problems Wales faces, is secure.

Willem (right) going for a walk in Wales, probably.

Education Minister (LD)

Taking up the position of Education Minister, the experience Willem, who (rumors’ say) was asked to fill the position by the First Minister, personally. Promising a ‘closer examination’ of the educational system, Willem appears to be keeping their cards close to their chest – however, this important Ministry is another feather in the Liberals hat. Punching above their weight in this coalition, the Welsh Liberal Democrats have done exceptionally well in the negotiations.

Cuth, contemplating the higher mysteries.

Health and Social Care (LPC)

Having previously served in a Labour – Plaid – LPC Government in Wales, Cuth is a veteran of Welsh politics, and previously worked as leader of the LPC when Greejatus himself was a member.

Remarkably little has been provided as to what the LPC asked for in exchange for their support in this government, however sources within the LPC commented saying;

We have worked with the First Minister before, for several years, and there is little to be gained from hiding that simple fact. It is our belief that this Government is one that is built on strong communication and trust, alongside a shared desire to work across party lines for the betterment of Wales.

Unnamed Source who obviously is real
Tarkin, wearing the traditional headgear of a Welsh Cowboy

Transport Minister (LPC)

Having once been the winner of the ‘Dick Cheney look alike contest’, Tarkin has served in numerous positions in national Government, and now heads up the LPC. Previously a deputy leader of the Libertarian Party nationally, Tarkin and the First Minister, Greejatus, are reported to ‘go way back’ having once been business partners in the cryptocurrency sector, where they co-chaired the business known as ‘Friedcoin’, before sitting on the board of the Sun Newspaper.

Taking the position of Transport Minister, Tarkin is reportedly looking at improvements for the rail sector across Wales, including electrification of the network, and, of course, a space port and Menia Crossing.

Chi, pasteurizing

Culture Minister (CON)

Whilst strenuously denying that he is in fact, a cow, Chi has taken the position of Culture Minister, increasing the Conservative Parties hold on the cabinet by leading such an important ministry. After all, would we even have a culture if the government didn’t have a minster for it?

With a key focus on the Welsh Language, as well as more cultural and arts support for economical deprived areas, Chi has a challenging task ahead of them for the forthcoming term.

He is also, a bovine.

Tory peer Michael Heseltine reveals he strangled his mother's Alsatian
Chev, realizing he volunteered for this

Chief of Staff to the First Minister (IND)

Finally, and whilst not holding a Ministerial Post, Chev – a long time supporter of the First Minister – has assumed the position of Chief of Staff, according to source close to the First Ministers office.

Having piloted large amounts of solid legislation through Westminster, mostly with cross-party support, Chev provides years, possibly even decades of experience to the government team.

“The DPM Did Little to Convince Us To Stay” – Behind the Scenes At the D12

Following South Korea’ shocking decision to leave the D12, a South Korean source at the Foreign Ministry gives a detailed account of the events that lead to the ultimate breakdown of relations and departure of South Korea from the organization.

Yesterday saw the decision by South Korea to exit the D12, a move which is a significant knock to the recently formed alliance. This unexpected shakeup puts the future of the body and calls the course greater geopolitics within the region into question. In order to understand the rationale and timeline of South Korean withdrawal, the Telegraph reached out to our sources within South Korea. We were able to secure communication with an anonymous source within the ROK Foreign Ministry who was able to provide us with a first-hand account of what happened behind the scenes in the weeks before the decision became public. 

First off, we asked our source when exactly did their country start having doubts over the D12. While they were unable to give an exact date on it, they confirmed that definitely by December rumors and doubts were coming to circle in Seoul and among the senior staff in the Foreign Ministry. South Korea’s position in the D12 apparently became more unclear after former PM lily-irl referred to the situation in Xinjiang as a genocide. This did not please the South Korean government who saw this statement as a sign of drastic action and instead wished to use the D12 for a more slow and long-term solution regarding China. 

When asked about the pressure South Korea faced from China our source downplayed the impact of such pressure. We asked if the November visit by top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi to South Korea saw any pressure from China. Our source responded by saying: “There was perhaps slight pressure, but we are not easily intimidated. This was a decision made in the best interests of the Republic of Korea.”

Instead, more of the reasoning behind Korea’s withdrawal was placed on the UK’s government response or rather lack of response to South Korean concerns. The South Korean government reached out to the British government and talked to the Deputy Prime Minister. The South Koreans wished to talk about the agenda for the upcoming D12 summit. During this conversation, the South Korean’s wished to take a long-term approach and they learned from the DPM that they intended to demand immediate access to detention camps in Xinjiang. When they asked the DPM what action would be taken if China denied such access as they presumably would the DPM did not have a clear answer. This seems to be more complex and nuanced reason than the original government statement regarding South Korea’s withdrawal which was attributed to Parliament ruling the events happening in Xinxiang a genocide.

Ultimately the South Koreans felt that the UK did not understand the need to take a long-term view to deal with China and their wishes felt ignored by the British government. When they told the DPM that China would not grant access to the camps in Xinjiang and this would require an escalation by the D12 the government refused to change course, as our source told us “The DPM did little to convince us to stay.” Faced with a refusal to change course, SK felt they had to leave. 

Then they focused on today’s press conference held by the DPM. The South Koreans were taken aback by the comments made by the DPM, with our source saying “the comments were not well received and the implications unfair.” The DPM’s specific comments saying that South Korea’s priorities “The Republic of Korea has felt that their priorities were in conflict with our priority of keeping people safe and preventing future human rights violations” was not well received. The South Koreans felt that the statement which implied South Korea did not place a value on human life misrepresented their position and the UK failed to understand the reality of the threat posed by China to South Korea. While South Korea does not share a direct border with China, the PRC supports North Korea and has pressured South Korea in the past such as when US THAAD defenses were placed in South Korea by using a boycott to put pressure on Korean businesses. They remarked such comments especially in a public statement shocked them. 

It is clear there will be much discussion in Seoul both about their departure from the D12 and what they feel as unfair comments about South Korea made by the Deputy Prime Minister. When asked what this meant for the future of UK-SK relations our source did not wish to speculate but told us their government found the UK’s “implications to be unfair and they oversimplified our reasons for leaving.” With South Korea’s withdrawal from the D12 and their offense at the DPM’s comments, it is not an understatement to say that relations between the countries will be strained. 

In stark contrast to a few months earlier when Foreign Secretary Seimer landed in Seoul and secured South Korea’s membership in the D12, now the nation has retreated from the D12 and been hurt by the UK. With such an important ally in the Asia-Pacific leaving, the future of the UK’s and the entire West’s approach to combat China is called into question. Furthermore, especially in light of the offense caused by the DPM’s comments on South Korea, strained bilateral relations call into question the future of the UK-SK relationship and any potential for a free trade deal. 

Tres Commas is a special correspondent for the Telegraph.

Solidarity’s platform shows they want one thing: control over your life.

If the past few days have shown anything, it is that the increasingly extreme left-wing party, Solidarity, have very little interest in anything other than complete control over the UK Economy, over the workers and over your life.

From limiting the sort of work you can do, to ‘gradually transferring’ your pension equity to someone else, Solidarities recent campaign pledges have painted an ugly picture of their plan for the United Kingdom should they enter a government after the next election. In a spat that has dominated the press cycle, Solidarity announced (or reconfirmed according to their members) their commitment to banning Zero Hours Contracts (ZHCs), causing rebuttal arguments from other parties, which Solidarity ignored – despite the overwhelming evidence that their proposed ban could put upward of seven-hundred thousand people out of work.

Speaking at the time of the release, former Justice Secretary /u/vitiating debunked the claims that ZHCs undermine workers rights saying:

“There exists laws that prevent the exploitation of workers by allowing them to request a fixed hours contract with the employer only being allowed to reject this request in limited circumstances.”

/r/MHOCPress, 12 January 2021, link

This claim was attacked by Solidarity leader /u/motelblinds, who claimed that workers “have to beg” (link) for contracts with more hours, which once again was swiftly debunked by the former Justice Secretary, who pointed out the clear difference between ‘requesting’ and ‘begging’, before reiterating once again that the point of ZHCs is flexibility. Solidarity however stuck to their lines, ignoring the evidence mounting against them – before finally, the dam broke, and it became clear just why they wanted this form of worker freedom outlawed, with Libertarian leader, /u/Friedmanite19 summing it up saying;

“I am sure the many people on their zero-hour contracts can speak from experience and don’t need you to use the force the state to outlaw their current arrangements. Outlawing the contracts means fewer jobs will be given out and there is less flexibility. Not everyone wants fixed or small guaranteed hours. This policy will increase costs, make the labour market more rigid and take away opportunities from people. Trying to force people onto permanent contracts will be bad for employers and employees alike.”

(/r/MHOCPress, 12 December 2021, link)

As ever, the move to outlaw workers freedoms by scrapping the ZHC, has nothing to do with protecting the worker, and everything to do with state overreach, and a widespread movement within the radical left to increase the control the state has over your life.

Never was this made clearer than with the recently announced plan from Solidarity to ‘gradually’ remove private share ownership. As part of their shift toward socialism, Solidarity therefore naturally makes a move against Capitalism – and we are left asking ourselves, which one of these systems is more democratic? Which one of these systems maximises your freedom, and which one of these systems would hand the state more and more control over our lives.

It cannot be denied that Socialism has a long track record of failure, however, according to its supporters, it is more democratic and more moral than its competitors. Looking at the words of socialist film producer, Michael Moore, we can begin to see where this fallacy originated, and how it continues to spread.

“Democratic socialism means everyone has a seat at the table, and everybody gets a slice of the pie.”

(Vanity Fair, 21 May 2020, link)

Generally speaking, if the majority of people working through their representatives declare something to be a ‘public good’ then they have the moral justification to extract resources from others in order to finance this endeavour. On a superficial basis, this probably sounds good – but you need to ask yourself a series of questions.

What control do the people really have over any governmental institution? There are simple examples to answer this question in the United Kingdom alone, what control do you have over the BBC, over the NHS – the answer is none. Genuine public control over the institutions of government is simply a facade for government control, over aspects of your lives.

When it comes to Solidarity the question of ‘majority rule’ becomes more pressing than ever. What if 51 per cent of the UK population vote to remove the personal property from the remaining 49 per cent? Does that make the action right? Under the authoritarian proposals of a socialist government, this could well be the case – except once again, the wealth would work its way back into the hands of the State, not the 51 per cent of people who voted to seize the wealth in the first place. And then the question arises if you hand the state that sort of power – what stops them using it against you?

However, the main issue with the concept of Solidarity’s style of socialism is the false issue they take with the idea that under a different system, the economy is not under the control of the people. 

This is not the case. Everyone within the United Kingdom is both a citizen of the United Kingdom and a consumer within its economy. Both can vote, either in general elections or several times a day with purchases; in the largest single democratic undertaking in history, the free market. It is the absolute pinnacle of democracy, the ability to exercise your choice with every pound that you spend, with every patronage you give to a store, an outlet or a service. 

You do not ‘cede’ your democratic rights to a representative, you enact your democratic rights yourself.

Let’s be exceptionally clear. Under the Solidarity system, you pass your right to chose to the State, and cede your freedoms in the process. Under the alternative system, you keep your freedoms, your rights to choose, yourself.

It cannot be denied at all, that there is a clear and present danger in the United Kingdoms political system – the Solidarity Party, and their crusade to stop the state being subservient to the people, and make the people, subservient to the state.

A rebuttal on ZHC [Op-Ed]

Over the course of the past few hours Solidarity has attempted to flood the press in an attempt to boost their ratings in the polls, with poor effort posters and anti-intellectual spam. My good friend Greejatus wrote an article regarding flexible working contracts, otherwise known as ‘Zero Hour Contracts’ debunking the nonsense from Solidarity yesterday ,however, Solidarity responded with, shock horror, a poster saying ‘reject the spiel’ – ignoring the evidence presented in the article, and misleading the British public as they did so

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind RedWolf decided to write their article by using a singular source – the Trades Union Congress (TUC) which is of course naturally biased. The Solidarity cult no doubt thinks they are  so clever for googling this one source then typing up some data! I will actually Office of National Statistics (ONS) data to eliminate any bias of surveys and use a real life example from McDonalds to illustrate my point. 

According to the Office of National Statistics, ZHC are most common amongst young people with 10% of those aged 16-24 in employment in a Zero Hours contract, and 6.2% of those aged over 65 in employment on a ZHC. Furthermore 19% of people on ZHC are in full-time education. 

As the economy has strengthened the number of ZHC for those 25-64 has fallen. 

60.6% of people on Zero Hour contracts do not want more hours, in other words they don’t need your transformational change and don’t suit your narrative of poor workers being exploited by big evil corporations, Ah yes the NHS which uses ZHC. Only 20.1% of people on ZHC want extra hours or another job. 

The current proposals by Solidarity, which would see ZHCs banned, would push the vast majority of these workers out of employment altogether, forcing them onto negative income tax (which is capped at £10,000 per year), and therefore earning less than they would have earned before Solidarity made their job illegal. 

Now if workers were crying out for the desperate change Solidarity are pushing for, then you would think less than 80% of workers at McDonad’s would chose to stay on a ZHC when having the option of a fixed job. No this isn’t a survey, this is something that actually happened. It appears that having a choice was actually a good thing and individuals expressed their preference. We don’t need  people like RedWolf and moteblinds to tell working people what they actually prefer.

A study in 2013 by the CUPID revealed that those on ZHC were more likely to be happy with their work life balance compared to the overall UK workforce.

The data shows that ZHC are most prevalent for students who can not always commit to fixed hours and people who want to work a few hours a week on the side or in semi-retirement. But Solidarity wants to take that away, and restrict your freedoms and the choices of us as workers.. Whether it’s choosing your child’s school, the kind of employment contract you want or choosing how to manage your own finances, Solidarity wants to take that choice away because they believe they know better than you and can manage your life better. 

As Solidarity continues unveiling their ‘focuses’ in the press, only one thing is becoming clearer: Solidarity has no interest in serving the workers, and every interest in ensuring the workers serve them and their ideological goals.

ZHC are an important part of the labour market and has given job opportunities to people who can not commit regular hours, to our young people and to those in full-time education.

The Agency Worker Regulations Act in 2010 can explain some of the rise we have seen in ZHC, the Act means that workers need to be effectively treated as permanent employees after 12 weeks. This has meant employers can not minimise labour costs when demand is variable. The act can explain who employers such as the NHS have opted for Zero Hour contacts. This is something I am happy to take a look at and explore.

I do not doubt there are some people who struggle and feel exploited however banning these contracts outright would be a disproportionate response. We have Negative Income Tax (NIT) which tops up wages for a good reason. If it is ‘insecurity’ we are going after, why stop at ZHC, Solidarity could attack all forms of self-employment, remember they’re the saviours you didn’t need!

If Solidarity had their way, these people would not have jobs, a flexible labour market has helped the United Kingdom have a lower unemployment rate than our European counterparts who have had shocking levels of unemployment. Labour market flexibility is something that has been a positive. A ban on ZHC would mean that more people wouldn’t have jobs at all. It’s clear that this would have more harm than good.

This article was written by Sir /u/Friedmanite19 OM KCMG KBE CT LVO PC MP , Former Chancellor Of The Exchequer and Leader of the Libertarian Party United Kingdom

References: 2021. EMP17: People In Employment On Zero Hours Contracts – Office For National Statistics. [online] Available at: <; [Accessed 12 January 2021].

BBC News. 2021. Zero-Hours Contract Workers Happy, Survey Suggests. [online] Available at: <; [Accessed 12 January 2021].

Jessop, J., 2021. Why Zero-Hours Contracts Are A Good Thing — Institute Of Economic Affairs. [online] Institute of Economic Affairs. Available at: <; [Accessed 12 January 2021].

Shackleton, L., 2021. Why Zero-Hours Contracts Should Not Be Banned — Institute Of Economic Affairs. [online] Institute of Economic Affairs. Available at: <; [Accessed 12 January 2021].