Model Telegraph

Lily-irl is seen by many as the clear favorite to replace Akko.

The Telegraph can confirm tonight that Labour Leader Akko has resigned from the party.

As tonight’s election results came in it was meet with cheers at Conservative Party HQ and victorious roars inside the LPUK in Milton Keynes and a smaller but still happy gain for the Liberal Democrats. A resurgent Tory Party saw their position as the largest party hold with 31 seats despite falling polls during their term in minority goverment while a powerful LPUK surged into second place with 23 seats beating Labour on the back of a powerful national campaign. The major failure of the night was the collapse of the Labour Party left with only 21 seats as they saw their potential gains crumple. Meanwhile, the Lid Dems picked a few seats from Labour to land them 16 seats. This term saw Labour overtake the Tories two times in the polls only to be beaten back. In the lead up to the election rising defections, bad press and a heavily criticized manifesto saw them always on the backfoot in this election.

The question being asked inside Labour HQ and by pundits across the country is it time for Akko to go? The Telegraph has obtained comments on the condition of anonymity from several Labour members. One Labour member had this to “I expected that the results tonight will be bad but I didn’t think it will be this bad.” They confirmed that they expect a leadership election to be called shortly with the party losing confidence in Akko. That seems to agree with the general sentiments of the pundits who expect Akko to resign or either be forced out internally. When asked how they see as a potential replacement they nominated  Former Labour Leader and current DL Lily-irl as good choice for the party. Winds seem to be shifting across the country and internally as voters abandoned Labour in droves. 

Now a second, a statement came mere minutes ago with the a bombshell that Labour Akko and officially resigned thus leaving the top post open. Lilley candidates appear to Labour DLs and the front-runner at this time seems to Lily-Irl who seems to favored inside the party. Another senior Labour inside told us that Akko’s resignation was “not unexpected”, but remained tight-lipped on the future leadership race. 

When asked to comment on the party’s results the Labour Press Office has little to say but did comment they were proud of their efforts and motivation. They, however, gave no comment on the leadership fate, saying they would wait for an official statement from the leadership saying “And it’s up to Akko what happens next.” The future of the Labour Party hangs in the balance as they stand battered and look to a new face for hope.

Results here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YuhAprH2LPdPeOD_D0sycxIy9trzYtuu6xbX_udfpCQ/edit

Blurple is set to hold 56 seats after all results are announced tomorrow night, according to the Telegraph-Yougov exit poll.

The projections, conducted jointly between the two organisations, predicts the Conservatives to drop 4 to 33, the LPUK to gain 8 to 23, Labour to fall 2 to 22, Lib Dems to gain 5 to 15 with the smaller parties of TPM, DRF and PUP getting 3, 3 and 1 respectively.

The big story of the poll is the unprecedented surge in seats for the Libertarians, who make one of the largest single term seat gains for a party in recent memory. The LPUK are set to take a large number of list seats, as well as gaining both North East constituencies from the Conservatives, Gloucs+ Wilts and Bedfordshire+Hertfordshire from the Lib Dems with Clydeside and Leeds+Wakefield from Labour. 

The Conservatives will be quite happy with the projected results, as the party loses just 4 from pre-election and 1 from the last election results, having gained three during the term from their unofficial merger with the NUP. Following 6 months of significant attacks, and a period where their place at the top of British politics looked under significant threat, they emerge with well over 30 seats. The projections see then gaining the constituency seats of West Yorkshire, Dorset, Cornwall+Devon and London West, while losing Northumbria and Tyne+Wear.

A disastrous end of term mixed with a disastrous campaign sees Labour in third place, with the party’s path to power now appearing to be entirely cut off. This election will feel like a huge missed opportunity for the party, who just 2 months ago were leading the polls and looking like a party with serious governmental ambitions. ARTBs leadership is likely to come under question following this result, as the party faces a struggle to even take up OO. The party is not set to make any constituency gains this election, with Clydeside, Hampshire South, Dorset, Leeds and Glamorgan all being lost, with even their Leader ARTB’s seat of Merseyside being classed as a “tossup, leaning Lab”.

The Lib Dems very active campaigning has worked according to the poll, as the party makes a gain 5 seats to 15. All of their gains come from list seats, as the party is actually set to lose 3 constituencies while gaining just 2, Yorkshire North and Glamorgan+Gwent.

It’s a disappointing poll for the three smaller parties, with the DRF and TPM losing seats and the PUP failing to make some of their expected gains. The DRF fall from 8 seats to 3, holding 2 London lists as well as a Northern Irish seat. The TPM’s seat share is halved to 3 as well, with the party taking lists in SE England, SW England and the Northwest. The PUPs strategy of significant focus on the East of England doesn’t appear to have paid off, with the party only taking 1 seat, a list in that area. The party’s decision to endorse TPM on the South West list was a poor one, as they look set to miss out on a list seat there.

7 seats are classified as “toss ups” under our projections. They have been assigned to the party most likely to win them, however these seats are likely to be very close contests. Among them are Cumbria and Lancashire North, where the Foreign Secretary InfernoPlato faces a stiff challenge from LPUK Housing Spokesperson RMSteve, and Merseyside, where the Labour Leader ARichTeaBiscuit and the LPUK’s model-elleeit are competing in a highly competitive race.

Under these results, the only potential coalitions with a majority are Blurple with 56 or a BroadRight coalition of CON-LPUK-LD with 71 seats. Either coalition would have significant and safe majorities. Another potential alliance, the return of CleggCo, is just short of a majority with 48 seats, and could also be an attractive prospect. For the Left, a LibLab coalition would have 37, barely ahead of the Tories on their own, while a BroadLeft of LAB-TPM-DRF-PUP is not a viable government as they have just 29 seats.

Written by RMSteve, Baron of Amesbury

Over the last couple of days, we have seen many advertisements and newspaper articles coming from the Conservative Party that lambaste their opponents for various policies. Attacks on opposition party members on taxes, on defence, and other aspects. With all of this, the Tories have launched a boisterous offense against the other parties, especially the major parties such as the Libertarian Party UK and the Labour Party; however, one must ask how successful the Conservative government in the last term has been.

    Let’s begin with their most expensive pet project. Ambercare is the nationwide childcare program installed by the Tory government, which, in its original design, would have cost the taxpayers around £55 billion to get off the ground and implement across the United Kingdom. The Conservatives did not cost this figure and had a massive blackhole in their budget, they then proceeded to stick cotton wool in their ears when voting on a motion based on official OECD figures. After realising that Ambercare even by their massive underestimate was unaffordable they decided to change tack and cut funding to this programme. The Tories themselves realised their position was untenable.

The Tories voted to increase taxes on the people of this country despite having promised that only the wealthy would pay for Ambercare. The reality is that working people paid in income tax, VAT and sin taxes. In the Blurple government they were for a tax freeze and then after the election against. Now they say they want a tax freeze but who on earth should believe them?
The Tories attack Labour on the economy but teamed up with them to raise VAT meaning the average household will be worse off by £359. They are no longer the party of low taxes and low spending that they were under Thatcher. After assaulting working families with tax rises, they have the gall to think the British public should be grateful for their tax freeze, they are promising not to make you even worse off than they have. What we need is a LPUK government to reverse this and some knock off pledge from opportunists who haven’t even bothered to cost it. Under the Conservatives the deficit will rise over 5 years as we forgo tax revenue they did not account for and their one-off revenue streams run out. It seems like they have given up on fiscal responsibility.

The Conservative Party have constantly voted no on legislation that would have protected the people of the United Kingdom, their freedoms, and individuality, voted no on policies that expanded devolved nations’ authority to rule on various matters, and voted no to the rest of the Parliament holding their government to account. The Tories opposed the increased presence of judicial review to oversee the process of application by law enforcement for search and arrest warrants. They opposed a bill that would ensure police were unable to use DNA evidence that was involuntarily given to them, thus securing the right of privacy to the people. They even opposed a bill that would devolve justice and policing affairs to the Welsh government through referendum. Finally, they have attempted to cover up their erroneous practices and misdemeanours. They voted no to a motion in Parliament that contained economic data and numbers from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development to avoid scrutiny from institutions. They were recently found out to have members disguised as an online fact-check organization who used their reputation to constantly support the Tory government even in their most error-ridden statements. Once found out, Parliament tabled a motion to condemn the government for such practices, to which they voted no to.

In conclusion, the Conservative Party aggressively denigrates their opponents through mocking campaign posters and sniping speeches; however, they themselves are not angels and have failed Britain time after time, attempted to shut down others from passing legislation beneficial to the British people, and have consistently covered up their mistakes and misdemeanours and attempted to circumvent parliamentary and national scrutiny. The Tories should look to clear the rot from their internal institutions before they attempt to go on the offensive.

Written by RMSteve, Baron of Amesbury

It has been two days since the release of all of the manifestos of all the parties participating in the 14th General Election for the Parliament of the United Kingdom and already comments have started arriving from people on all sides either praising or lambasting the various election plans. One of the most heavily ridiculed was the Labour Party’s manifesto, which saw terrible policies, shoddy textual styles, and inaccuracies. As they’ve done in the past, Labour has focused their assault plan on business; however, this time, it’s the small businesses being targeted.

Under their tax system section, Labour states that they would be introducing a new corporate tax on family-owned businesses of 17.5% of their revenue. They claim that they understand the nature of family-owned businesses and are making taxes less than the amount ordinary corporations have to face, but that does nothing at all to help the plight of small businesses and their owners. Already suffering from the massive burdens of the various taxes imposed by governments in the past as well as mortgages, rental costs, insurance, and other fees, the Labour Party is added another boulder on the back of the common people through “corporate” tax, despite the fact that many of the businesses they are targeting do not have the money, the manpower, or the capacity to be labeled as “corporations”. Governments have failed to demarcate a specific threshold for the separation of small businesses from large corporations, and Labour is attempting to implement that to tax people, not billionaires, but ordinary, common people, for 17.5% of their revenue when they are already struggling to pay the electricity and water bills, struggling to pay for life, automobile, and property insurance, struggling to pay for mortgages and rents, struggling to feed for their families and educate their children. 

On top of this, Labour also announced in their manifesto that they would be seeking to raise the minimum wage across the country to £12 per hour as well as expansion of paid holiday and compensation for holiday time not taken. On the surface, this seems like a very good policy, one that promotes the welfare of the employees and lower class of the United Kingdom. However, a large corporation with millions and even billions of pounds of net worth and billions of dollars of revenue a day can easily afford to pay for these increases and expansions; the middle class and small business owners, instead, are being whipped for this. Family-owned businesses that make only hundreds or, at the very most, a couple of thousand of pounds a year can hardly be able to pay for the additional increases in salary and compensation for vacation. Furthermore, the task of determining the minimum wage has long been in the hands of This is the Labour Party just piling on burden after burden upon the backs of the common folk and the small businesses of the United Kingdom.

Governments in the past, both Labour and Conservative, but especially Labour, have focused on restraining businesses and holding them accountable, to varying degrees, but this Labour manifesto displays a frightening new front on their warpath: the small business. Small businesses are absolutely essential to the health of local economies and, thus, the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole. They are the bones that, when combined, give structure to a vibrant and successful nationwide economy. Breaking the bones breaks the body, and if Labour rises, they will shatter the bones and make the economy collapse, causing irreparable damage to our economic strength and our viability as a legitimate foreign trading partner. This is just one of the follies of the Labour Party’s manifesto but this is, to me and to many people, the most dangerous and terrifying aspect of their policies.

Labour candidate for West London Vincendt appears to have poured fuel on the fire of a recent campaign statement, where the candidate said that Labour would increase NHS spending by “200 billion”.

While originally assumed by most that this was a misstatement, and that the candidate intended to say “to 200 billion”, a new comment from the West London Candidate has put some doubt to that theory.

Vincendt, in a response to LPUK Deputy Leader Seimer1234, said “Akko told me to do it”, in reference to Vincendts 200 billion pledge. While unclear if this is yet another misstatement from the candidate facing the Home Secretary, it is yet another example of a party failing to get their campaign message organised.

Conservative Newspaper, ‘The Monolith’ has today accused the Libertarians of wanting to raise taxes by £300 per household. Thanks to the Editors of the Telegraph, I am pleased to be able to rebuke these false claims. It is important to note that the Monolith did not question the Conservative budgetary blackhole that will be left once the one-off revenue from their proposed privatisation plans are no longer available. Indeed, the Monolith did not even pick up on the uncosted tax pledge from the Conservatives that their candidates are strongly boasting about as campaigning continues in this election.

The notion that families will pay higher taxes under the Libertarians is categorically false. 

The Monolith claimed that the LPUK planned £98bn in spending cuts and in that regard, they are correct, as the Libertarians believe that Government funding is bloated in a great many departments. However, what the Monolith didn’t tell you was the total sum of tax cuts that we have planned. The Land Value Tax rise will bring £23.38 billion. Our income tax cuts £42.79 billion. Once you add VAT and excise duties you get £75.99 billion which is greater than the planned LVT and Carbon tax increase. Once you examine the cost of tax cuts it is bizarre to see where the Monloith’s figures come from as their sums simply do not add up. 

They’ve purposefully framed misleading figures to make it look like the tax burden will rise when this could not be further from the truth.

The average household income in the UK is approximately £34,519. Under the current tax regime they would pay £2,174.32 in tax. Under the LPUK’s plans, including lifting the personal allowance threshold by 2% in line with inflation, they would only pay £1,580.51. This is a reduction of £593.81. From figures provided by the ONS  the average household will spend £2,514.31 on VAT with a rate of 17.5%. Under our plans that becomes £2,155.13. This is a reduction of £359.19. Having used the same methodology for alcohol and tobacco duty the average household will spend £310.22 less.

The Libertarians have always been upfront and honest about wanting to raise LVT, not only is it it right that we ensure wealthy landowners pay their fair share,it is an economically efficient tax and is not distortive, unlike others.

Given the overall annual rental value of land is £184 billion and there are 12 regions, it would be a fair assumption to take the third most expensive region which has an average rental value of £7,645 in the South West. ( The total average rental value here is £19 billion which is higher than the regional average of £16.67 billion so I am being very generous here). If we take this figure and take 9% of it which is the proposed tax rise we get an increase of £688.05.

Overall the average household is £575.15 better off under our plans. This is on a very generous LVT figure. If you take a considerable amount, estimated to be around half of families who do not own a home, and those who have properties further down the property ladder. In areas outside of the South England the cost of LVT will fall quite a bit providing a sizeable benefit. I am sure Libertarian candidates will make this clear as we seek to make dents into the Labour and Tory seats that are not in the South. Our plans are grounded in sound economics and will benefit the average household contrary to Monolith misleading  headlines.

We have to adopt a practical and economically focused approach to this election, and that is what the Libertarian Party is doing. 

Firmly, we understand that the money people earn is better off in their pockets – not the coffers of Government. This is why we are reducing taxation, and insisting that the Government spends the people’s money more responsibly. The choice is clear, with the Tories you get short term boosts to the public purse, with no long term economic plan in play. With Labour you get hundreds of billions of pounds of borrowing and taxation. With the Libertarians, you get an unleashed economy, with lower taxes. 

That is why our message is clear, join us and start to take your own Footsteps to Freedom.

*The figures for VAT and excise duties were derived by taking an average by the 2nd bottom quintile and 3rd quintile in Table 2 of The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, UK, 2018/19 by the ONS. They were then applied for MHOC figures.

This article was written by the Leader of The Libertarian Party United Kingdom, /u/friedmanite19

A “fully-costed manifesto” has been one of the phrases of the election so far, with the Conservatives and Libertarians making their costings a campaign centre-piece. However, the Tories have come under pressure from their Libertarian counterparts over an apparent budgetary “black hole”.

The gap in public finances under the Conservatives appears to come from so-called “one-off” revenue sources such as the sale of rolling stock, to pay for projects such as the 11 billion pound increase for MoD spending. Assuming the government continues to spend 2.5% past the first year of this one off revenue, it will cause the UK to go into a deficit.

Another problem outlined by Libertarian Leader Friedmanite19 comes from the income tax freeze proposed under the Tory Economic platform. This would cut government revenue by a sum of £9.57billion by 2024-25, as the Conservatives are not clear about adjusting the income thresholds for “fiscal drag”, when inflation increases the income of the public meaning they pay a higher rate of taxation. If they intend to raise the thresholds with inflation, it could cost even more.

LPUK Leader Friedmanite19 addressed the press on this issue in a statement yesterday morning, saying “as things stand their plan is far from credible and their numbers do not add up”. He also said he “hopes the Conservatives can outline how they wish to actually fund these pledges”

The overall cost of the budget mistakes from the Tories manifesto is unclear, due to a lack of answers from the Conservatives surrounding the length of time the country will receive revenue from the privatisation of the water sector. However, what is clear is that under the current Conservative plans, the country would be facing a not insignificant deficit.

This is a Telegraph editorial written by ThreeCommas, Telegraph Political Correspondent.

As Britain gears up for what might be the most decisive election in a generation the future of the Labour Party is looking more shaky than ever. Sunday’s polls put the long standing status of the party as the 2nd largest force in Britain in jeopardy as polls showed Labour polling dropping to 3rd while the LPUK held strong making them the 2nd strongest party. It seems that if this election doesn’t go the way they want to, Labour might just be pushed out of what they always took for granted: their position in Millbank Tower. Then came their election manifesto which has been lambasted by critics as poorly designed and ill conceived. Today the Telegraph examines the Labour Manifesto in detail. 

First the economy under a Labour government would be put into chaos as their conflicted policies put into question the basic understanding of economics. Labour promised to seek an end and abolish almost all tariffs. This move would come as a broadside to British industry which relies on such protections to sustain their business. One poignant example is the British steel sector which Labour has been vocal on the need of saving. But our industry relies on tariffs to protect their business from being undercut by Chinese state subsidized cheap steel. By removing those tariffs Labour would bankrupt the entire sector and push them into collapse. 

The next major section in the economy advocates for major spending increases and remains unsure how these will be funded. Projections from other press outlets such as the Sun have costed roughly half of the promises at over 700 billion pounds. How all this spending will be accounted for remains to be seen but no doubt at least in part funded by the likes of the new tax on small businesses. In the very same manifesto they promise to support and promulgate small business they introduce a new tax designed to break the back of small businesses. The irony is only impounded when the very same section promises tax deductions for large corporations that decide to pay dividends. Thus giving a tax-cut to companies paying out dividends to their millionaire and billionaire shareholders. 

Then comes Labour’s prized policy for nationalizing rail. But there seems to be a conflicted message here. Labour claims to be the biggest backer of unions but in this case after buying out rail they want to replace conductors with driverless machines which would displace thousands out of their jobs and a move to be looked down by labor unions which they supposedly support. 

When it comes to the defense of the realm Labour have long been dogged by allegations of weakness by the Tories and the LPUK. Their latest manifesto only serves to further that narrative as out front and center on Page 4 is their promise to disarm the UK’s nuclear arsenal. As we face threats from a nuclear hungry Iran and rising nuclear powered China this move will be perceived as a weakness. Then on cyber security Labour makes bold promises but they hold little substance. Labour will establish the Cyber Defense Command and Strategic Information Service but provide zero detail on what exactly the two new agencies will even do or even why the country needs these two new agencies when we have cyber security defense divisions in GCHQ, MI5 and MI6. All that seems to be promised is more spending for the sake of it.

On the topic of Brexit it would appear Labour has forgotten why we even left the EU. Every page of their manifesto promises to play catch up with EU regulators and follow in tandem with EU laws. No doubt under a Labour premiership the UK would play by EU rules and be a follower to the tune of their beat. The UK should be focusing on creating our new path forward, not playing follow the leader with Brussels. Years after the decision to exit the EU Labour still seems to be stuck in the last instead of focusing on Britain’s future. 

Then there are their miscellaneous errors which all add up to an embarrassing lack of oversight. Typos and mistakes regarding the F4 talks with the Westminster govt a freeze on tuition fees which don’t exist all point to an ill prepared Labour. The future of the party had already been shaky with a wave of defection, dropping membership and now it seems all those fears were warranted. When asked to comment the Labour Press Office responded that these were inaccuracies and general typos in their document. Such mistakes cast doubt on how a dysfunctional Labour that can’t even prepare a proper manifesto can run this country. 

A petition has been garnering support in these past few days where ordinary citizens are campaigning for Parliament to prohibit the sale of hard drugs and confer strict penalties on those who do distribute hard drugs. Many families and citizens seem to support this policy due to the fact that young people these days are increasingly becoming more addicted to these drugs, sometimes with fatal effects. This has become the occurrence with Daisy Whithed, a young girl who died from overdosing on MDMA. I give my condolences to her parents, who started this petition. However, we must ask ourselves: has criminalising drugs worked?

A look back into the history of world politics will show that many governments have attempted to ban and criminalise sale, which ended up hurting those who were consuming as well. Let’s look at the War on Drugs in the United States. The criminalisation of drugs was intended to be a crackdown on the smuggling of drugs that caused the crack epidemic in the 1980s and the ongoing opioid epidemic. This policy saw the widespread arrest of people caught possessing hard drugs, irrespective of whether they desired to consume it or whether they desired to distribute it. This led to many people who had no intention of distributing drugs and who were, instead, addicted to them being arrested for virtually no reason and sentenced. Most of these arrests were disproportionately minorities who had become victims to the addictiveness of hard drugs and possessed, not to distribute, but to consume. This is just one of many examples throughout recent world history where government crackdown on drugs caused more issues and more incarceration for innocents.

Criminalising drugs will cause the same troubles here. Impoverished communities will be harassed constantly by police for housing drug dens. Addicts who were caught possessing would be imprisoned and their record blighted permanently. A blackened history means forever being unable to get jobs and earn money; eventually, they will have to live in the streets or off of welfare. Even then, banning and criminalising will not do much damage to the drug trade. Smugglers are quite experienced in transporting goods under the noses of government officials. Also, as the industry is cracked down upon by the government, more legitimate businesses will fall at risk and will either be forced to close down, be arrested, or engage in black market activity.

Overall, the premise of the petition is desirable: prevent our children and our citizens from being exposed to hard drugs and ruining, or even surrendering, their lives and livelihoods because of them. I understand, it’s difficult to see this happen in our nation. But criminalisation would have even more ramifications in terms of wrongful arrests, targeting of minority and impoverished communities, and increased black market activity. The side effects of this bitter medicine would be too hard for Britain to swallow.

This piece was written by /u/RMSteve, a Libertarian peer

The Leader of the Welsh Conservatives and Education Secretary was fired by the Prime Minister over support for a justice devolution referendum sending a shockwave through Westminster and the Senedd. This move has reasserted the Prime Minister’s authority and shows that CCHQ will stamp out any rebels. It appears that devolution is a redline when it comes to the autonomy of devolved leaders and anyone failing to toe the national parties line on devolution will follow the path of RhysGwenythIV.

The government replaced the education secretary with party loyalist and former leadership candidate BrexitGlory. This leaves BrexitGlory with four positions in government, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Education Secretary. The Prime Minister will be hoping that this appointment can reunite the cabinet as they head into a difficult election with the Conservatives forecasted to lose 8 seats.

RhysGwenythIV fiercely criticised the national Conservative Party in a resignation letter and said that the party is “riddled with the misconception that Wales is a joke” and that the membership “treats it as such.” He also attacked the government support for the high threshold requirement in the referendum of 75% and said that  “it is clear that the party will never fully respect democracy in Wales.” For many pundits this will confirm that the national Conservative Party is exerting control over the devolved branches to further their anti-devolution agenda in Westminster. For opposition parties Mr Gwenyth’s sacking has proved them right with the LPC seizing on his departure.

 In the removal of Mr GwenythIV, the interests of Wales have been exposed as secondary to the interests of the Westminster establishment and the Welsh Conservatives

cthulhuiscool2

RhysGwenythIV headed for the Liberal Democrats joining former Welsh First Minister model-willem in the party. He is yet another Classical Liberal which has left the party. The Liberal Democrats are now home to former Welsh Tory Leaders and also managed to bag the Welsh Tory Deputy Leader ohdearstudying who opted to also leave the party in solidarity with RhysGwenythIV. This also mean the party has lost an MP and an active member who was seen as a rising star by some.

The Telegraph managed to obtain a copy of ohdearstudying’s resignation letter. He also delivered serious blows to the Tory leadership.

It is with a heavy heart that I cannot continue in my position as Deputy Leader in the knowledge that the Welsh Conservatives are being cast aside and ignored for the sake of  “national policy

ohdearstudying

He also argued that the “Welsh Conservatives have been cast aside in favour of what Westminster feels is best for the party – even though it blatantly ignores the will of the People”

The Welsh Conservatives are in turmoil now losing both members of their leadership. A successor is yet to be chosen. When asked for comment ohdearstudying told the Telegraph the following:

“It seemed to me that Welsh Conservatives were seen as a proxy of the national party and they didn’t respect the leader standing up for his own principles on behalf of the People of Wales. It does not matter if the polls would not nosedive but it is about the respect for the will of the people who voted in for a significant amount of parties on the basis of the prospect of a referendum. It met the requirements in the Senedd and it felt as if we, and the Welsh People, were being undermined and ignored entirely in favour of what they claim to be a “party” decision. The Leader merely translated the concerns of the party to those higher up – hardly a crime.

ohdearstudying

There is no doubt that losing all members of the Welsh Leadership, a cabinet member, two MP’s and two AM’s will cause disruption to the Tories and disrupt the Conservatives momentum ahead of the election. However it is a risk the Prime Minister has decided was worth taking in order to tame any rebellion over devolution. Only time will tell if that gamble has paid off.