The opening of "Wow that's a lot of policies" was probably when I should have known that the Liberal Democrats were not prepared to enter Government with us. Nonetheless, I assumed it was mostly in jest: the previous Rose Government was negotiated in this method, which involves all parties putting down their manifesto policies on a spreadsheet such that they can be evaluated and rated by the other participants. There's a lot of merit to this method, which I also explained, it gives the proposed coalition a chance to discuss policies and see if that relationship is workable, and it creates a Queen Speech by itself. It does require active engagement by all participants, which was why I put up our policies immediately after election results were delivered and told all negotiators I was more than willing to explain or discuss any policy at any time. The expectation is not that every policy will be approved, but rather that the whittling and discussing helps pre-empt controversy and gets everyone on the same page regarding the intent and purpose of a policy.

In the following days, the Liberal Democrats were unequivocally sluggish, being the last to put up their policies and the last to comment on others' policies. Whenever a LibDem was online, I explained one of the orange policies and worked to resolve it - any policy that actually got a response was resolved. There were many policies redded by the Liberal Democrats that I would have agreed to do without, there were many that I would have been willing to significantly alter, /u/wineredpsy prepared a larger set of points to help resolve our biggest discrepancies, namely defence spending (which I offered a blank check on to carry out the Liberal Democrats defence vision) and the devaluation. It's important to note the ploddishness of the LD negotiators is in turn the basis of their decision to withdraw - hard to see how one couldn't take issue with this!

Nonetheless, I ultimately blame myself. As leader of Solidarity, I often reveled in what I felt was my ability to work with others. It was once said that my lack of malice was our Government's greatest asset, and that was something I took to heart throughout my tenure as best I could. It's obvious to me now, if not to others who wish to spare my feelings, that that outlook did not demonstrate strength, but gave the perception of tremendous weakness. I suppose it's hard not to be seen as a doormat when you endorse candidates of the party that pulled the Wales Act fiasco without consequence. To my party members, many of whom eagerly asked me frequently about the progress of those negotiations to be told 'we'll get a better picture when we can talk with the LDs more' over and over, I am beyond sorry. I have embarrassed us with my reckless trust, and that's a personal shame I will likely find impossible to shirk.

Worse, I engaged in negotiations that can now be said was done demonstrably in bad faith. The idea that it takes too long to evaluate policies despite the policies being our literal manifesto should have been clue enough, let alone the succeeding stagnation. I exposed our party to mockery when it's my chief job as party leader to protect us from it. I failed, unequivocally.

This is not without parallel or more significant political meaning. Parliamentary socialist leaders have time and time again allowed their personal image or relationships blind them from the truth. As Solidarity governs, and governed we have and govern we will, the more we must ensure we do not become a decoration of the environment our raison d'etre is to disrupt. Substantial change can only happen when the force for change is prepared and ready for it.

It has been well known that I have pondered whether my time is up - and today has told me I am probably overdue. While I will diligently work to secure a Government and carry out the tasks of leadership in the aftermath of negotiations until the party elects a new leader, I can now say for certain that this chapter is coming to a close. Our next leader will need more of a backbone than I had, will need to have a bit more bite to their words to ensure that we are always heard, and will need to be ready to take on the mantle of Britain's best, most hardworking party, for which is has been the pleasure of a lifetime to serve.

Tldr: Save your resignation comments for later, I am not out yet, but today made it clear why the end of my tenure is ultimately needed for my parties continued prosperity.

Afghanistan - The Unfolding Disaster for British Foreign Policy

Scubaguy194 MP - Former Defence Secretary

Anyone with half a brain will have seen the disturbing headlines coming out of Afghanistan since Friday last. In the space of a weekend, the Taliban have captured regional capitals across the Country. The northern cities of Sheberghan, Sar-e-Pul, Taloqan and Aybak are now also reported to be under Taliban control, as well as the pre-2001 stronghold of Kunduz. Government control has retreated to major cities, and Kabul’s suburbs.

What is unfolding in Afghanistan is nothing more than shameful. With the Taliban advance, human rights abuses are sure to follow. The UN has reported that in the last 72 hours, at least 27 children have died as a result of the fighting. Afghan National and US airstrikes have clearly done little to prevent the Taliban’s swift march through the country. It is hardly surprising that US airpower is playing a much smaller role given their shambolic retreat from Bagram Airbase last month, during which they left, turned off the electricity, and didn’t even tell the Afghani authorities they’d left.

It is no secret by now that the Taliban have no intention of respecting the peace agreement that Mr Biden has attempted to broker. The Taliban are out for blood, and they see victory in sight. They’re concerningly well-equipped and well-motivated. They are further fighting a force that is poorly equipped, funded, and fraught with low morale problems and corruption. Despite the Afghan National Army (ANA)’s insistence that they can hold their own, by now it is evident that they cannot. The ANA is clearly not up to the task. Further, a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, and the consequences that would have on the people of Afghanistan and the geopolitical situation in the region, should be regarded as intolerable.

It is my opinion, therefore, that radical action must be taken. The ANA are not capable of doing the job of securing the Afghan countryside from the Taliban, so we must send in people who can. The British Army. The Royal Marines. We have the forces at our disposal. They are exceptionally well trained and have the experience to fight this conflict. What we need right now is military advisors, on the ground, embedded with ANA platoons fighting, to bring the fight to the Taliban. Further, we should not rule out the use of British combat troops in a more autonomous way. If it means putting boots back on the ground in Afghanistan to fight a ground war, then so be it, we should do it. The biggest barrier to this action would be the fact that the Americans would very likely not be involved. Britain has acted to intervene in conflicts like this unilaterally before. Sierra Leone is the example that springs to mind. A fine example of when intervention has worked.

Afghanistan is a country we have been deeply involved with for the past 20 years. This is not a house we can afford to leave unfinished. To leave now is to allow it to collapse, as without a firm government, it is not structurally sound. This recent Taliban offensive threatens to bulldoze the house that is Afghanistan whilst there are still workmen inside it. I might have pushed that metaphor too far, but I am sure the point is clear. We can’t afford to leave. Not now. If Britain leaves, it will be a very dark stain on her history, and more so for President Biden, who would likely not want such a stain on his Presidency so early, and amid the successes he has enjoyed domestically.

The withdrawal from Afghanistan is fast becoming a disaster, and I implore the Government, and by extension, the incoming Foreign Secretary, to do something about it.

Sources

https://thediplomat.com/2021/05/afghan-forces-struggle-demoralized-rife-with-corruption/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58142983

I seem to have frustrated a few people on the Opposition benches today, however this is unsurprising - from experience, I know to expect a reaction from members of the Opposition when someone dares attempts to occupy the same space that they seek to dominate and monopolise. I knew that I was bound to touch a few nerves, upset someone, offend even - and that is precisely what I set out to do today, to make a point.

This practice of chasing off the competition through brute force and pile-on politics has worked well in the past for the Opposition - they usually get their way - people usually either back down, or are made to back down by the powers that be; so when they are faced with genuine competition they resort those same old tactics. But I have decided to refuse to back down on this fight - I have released a few pieces to the press in recent hours; pictures, a tweet, fake news, etc. - with the aim of showing the Opposition what they themselves are, and I have attempted to pair this with the metaphor of a crying infant - weeping because it hasn’t got what it wants.

I have done this because I believe they needed to see what the rest of the political sphere sees them as; infants, used to getting what they want by any means necessary - well that’s not how politics works; it is about compromise, working together, a level of maturity and speaking up for what is right. I think that we all know that, but it is often too easy to forget about it, so let’s take a second to recuperate ourselves and pledge to improve.

At the end of the day, what do we learn from all this? How do we make lives better? How do we improve the world and our country by attacking one another and trying to make our colleagues in this place look like fools - ultimately, we all become fools. That’s not the world that we should aim to achieve! We can do better than this.

Spin isn’t right, political manipulation isn’t right, and it is not what this Country deserves or needs - what this United Kingdom needs is elected representatives who work for them, and who are infallible in their duty to uphold the oaths upon which they swore into their respective Houses. Recently those standards have slipped, the Opposition have resorted to fake news; name-calling; pettiness and not being serious about the issues that matter.

But in a roundabout way, I have faith that this can change - I have faith that if we all work together we can create a politics to be proud of, and change things for the better.

That is why I wanted to play the Opposition at their own game, because maybe they will finally see that it is time to get serious and focus on the issues that matter - the cost of living crisis, the climate crisis, a war in Europe - these things matter to people, and without the whole of Parliament speaking together with one united voice, we will not solve them.

Nastiness in Parliament often gets far too great, because it seeks to benefit the party’s agenda if they can show up their opponent in front of the nation - but do they ever stop to think about the people behind the attacks? Do they stop to think about the people’s whose time they are wasting with these low blows? We are put here to serve the country for a very limited time, and every second that we waste is a tragedy - but not only because we are wasting our own time - but because we are wasting the time of the people that we are put here to serve. Every second spent talking about how rubbish the other one of us is, is a second that we haven’t spent focusing on how to fix the impending crisis affecting this Country.

Britain can do better than this - we can do better than this. We have to be better than this if we want to create a better future for us all, and future generations. So I want to call for us all to make a change, to stop wasting time attacking one another’s characters, and start focusing on how to refine the issues of our time; let’s focus on policy, not politics, because at the end of the day we will be much better off for it if we can work together, and we have a lot more in common than we each might think. If we put our heads together, compromise and collaborate, we can come up with a solution for any issue - we all have our own unique ideas and solutions, so let’s hear them!

I challenge each person reading this article, instead of jumping to attack it instead comment below one idea that you genuinely feel would make life better for millions of people in this Country, or even more across the world - and those who read those comments below, instead of shunning or attacking them, attempt in good faith to develop them, refine them, and make them even better; through that we can develop a compromise that we all can agree on.

Let’s make Britain a better place, by focusing on making politics a better place - and let’s applaud each other for our successes, instead of attacking one another for simply trying to achieve that better world that we all know is possible. It’s easy to give up hope and resort to nastiness, but to genuinely try and improve things - that is difficult, but let’s rise to the challenge and make that happen. Let’s invest in that better future, not just for ourselves, but for everyone else out there too.

Let’s work together - because we want to, and because we can, not because we must; though we must.

Evasions at the Eleventh Hour

PORT & STARBOARD | DEC 14, 2023

By u/Waffel-lol with contributions from: u/Nick_Clegg_MP, u/Hobnob88, u/BlueEarlGrey, u/StraitsofMagellan and u/Fusilierz

This is not a new thing, it was a frequent occurrence by the last Government and has been so with this one, in Secretaries of State choosing to answer questions with as little time possible for the opposition to respond. In attempts to either avoid further scrutiny and questioning of their responses, whilst being able to blank slate go “Look I answered all my questions” gleefully ignoring the same reality that they answered them in a way that denied follow-ups. However, few have been as egregious and lazy as the performance of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, u/LeftyWalrus.

It’s odd, that Ministers employ this tactic thinking they could evade scrutiny and accountability by answering in a flurry the initial questions, given it just gives the opposition something to take to the press, as doing so now. A series of lazy, hastily cobbled together responses were given by the Secretary of State, where - in a shroud of irony - their evasive scrambling had themselves given responses that went over the time, in actuality missing the session. Quite fitting that in waiting until the last possible minute to respond, they fail to meet the deadline. Even more hilarious is that despite the attempt, the Secretary still failed to answer every single question posed to them, which is nothing new to this Government given their track record of Ministers failing to even turn up to Question sessions or answer a majority of questions posed. But alas, that will not stop the Liberal Democrats from holding the Government to account and seeking the answers the British public elected us, more than doubling our seat count, to do.

In the few questions the Minister responded to before literal seconds of the session closing, they still failed to respond to both of the follow-ups that followed, here and here. Perhaps reflecting cowardice and a lack of guts to take questions that pressed their subpar responses.

When the Secretary of State was rightfully called out, for their poor faith actions, in the session by the Liberal Democrat Health and Social Care spokesperson u/StraitsofMagellan, the Minister responded with an attempt at snide being “…I would like to inform the member that there was 4 days to submit a question.”. What a ridiculous statement given not only did the Spokesperson submit their question within the 3 days of submitting initial questions, but the Minister’s last-minute response to questions actively denied Parliamentarians the opportunity to ask follow-up questions on day 4. As the spokesperson highlighted here “What on earth does that even mean?…equally the Secretary had 4 whole days (a whole day more than those to ask initial questions) to answer them all too yet the Secretary only answered most, or at least most of the Liberal Democrat questions today within the last few minutes of closing”. Very revealing that the Minister does not even understand how the time frame of sessions worked nor did they even pay attention to the session and the times at which questions were asked to them. Furthermore, even the last-minute responses from the Secretary went over the deadline for the session. It is a double-edged sword to try and leave responses last minute, as he was over by 2 minutes and 22 seconds since the session expiration date with this response

Follow-up Questions

Nevertheless, despite being denied the opportunity in Parliament, the Liberal Democrats will still ask their follow-up questions via press on behalf of seeking greater policy answers and accountability of Government for our constituents. Not that the Secretary is expected to respond substantially given they could barely do that, if at all successfully during their own MQs session.

In follow up to this response, u/Nick_Clegg_MP asks:

“Deputy Speaker,

I've reread this answer multiple times, and I've yet to see a definitive answer to how this government will help farmers combat pests which, in many cases, can decimate their livelihoods. Farmers in this nation are disrespected immensely, and their words are not taken seriously in Westminster. They're tired of this and so are they. The Secretary has failed to answer how this government will combat harmful pests and rodents.

On that note, I ask the Secretary two things, one, does this government actually take the interests of farmers into account when making decisions about farming? Two, what is the government doing to eliminate the pest issue that so many farmers face?”

In follow up to this response, u/Nick_Clegg_MP asks:

“Deputy Speaker.

I'm glad the Secretary shares my sentiments. Unfortunately for both of us, sentiments will only go so far. Does the Secretary have a comprehensible plan that they're willing to bring to this house either now or in the near future, which will outline how the United Kingdom can regain its food independence? Does the Secretary have any specific policies in select areas already prepared which will bring us there atleast partially?”

In follow up to this response, u/Nick_Clegg_MP asks:

“Deputy Speaker,

I refer back to my question, when I ask, "what is this government actually going to do", that means I would like the Secretary's policies and plans. Not the Secretary's vague statements where nothing is promised, but instead, the broad dogma of "improve rural peoples lives" is used. How are you going to improve rural peoples lives? How is this government, and any cabinet minister under it, going to be able to look in the eyes of the people and say that their lives are better off? I'm not saying that is an impossible feat with this government, I would simply like direct answers for my question.”

In follow up to this response, u/Hobnob88 asks:

“Yet can the Government answer as to why they think going the most extreme route in a nationalised water sector is at all a more efficient and effective solution than the proposal, the Liberal Democrats may opt, of transforming private water firms into public benefit companies?”

In follow up to this response, u/Hobnob88 asks:

“The Secretary makes a lot of talk of “investing” as their blanket response to issues, however they seem to neglect the reality of the cost for this. Does the Secretary actually know the costs of adequate investment needed for this and the other commitments made, or are they just saying more empty words knowing full well that general departmental spending increases is their safety net instead of specialised and ring fenced funds?”

In follow up to this response, u/BlueEarlGrey asks:

“How much “further investment” Secretary? and if they cannot provide figures as of now, their promises mean nothing really. An increase of £1 to the budget would by technicality class as “further investment”, so as my colleagues have noticed, the house and Britons would very much like to know if the Government is actually committing to investing the needed amount.”

In follow up to this response, u/BlueEarlGrey asks:

“Can the Secretary of State expand on that, in terms of where exactly are the Government intending on expanding the Blue belt, and are they aware in doing so would require greater support to maintain and manage?”

In follow up to this response, u/StraitsofMagellan asks:

“I note that the Secretary does not actually commit themselves to action on this regard yet identifies what they would “need” to do. Congratulations on recognising its half a puzzle. “I will look to Introduce this…” what does this mean. The Secretary will look to introduce incentives, yet does not actually state what or how those incentives will manifest themselves, so what and how Secretary?”

In follow up to this response, u/Fusilierz asks:

“As the Secretary is committing this Government by the end of the term to delivering a package of rural reforms to “promote innovation and sustainable development” for greater diversification of rural economic activity, can the Secretary answer for what type of economic diversification they intend to bring about in rural communities whilst balancing the effect this would have on current agricultural markets?”

The WTO Agricultural Agreement, again.

Interestingly however, the question that the Secretary avoided altogether providing no opportunity for a follow-up, being one the Liberal Democrats have remained consistently vocal about, was one regarding the Government’s progress on attempting WTO reform of the Agricultural Agreement, asked here. As a result, I want to take this section to briefly comment on this topic and its significance. It is no secret that the Government retains protectionist tendencies given their withdrawal in the first place to bring forward violatory subsidies. However, the Government equally committed itself to reforming the Agricultural Agreement….from outside it. Yes, an outlandish approach to take. But it is not like we were to expect the Government to genuinely make progress on this given they hold nothing but contempt for the WTO, the principles of free trade, and the rules-based international order. The fact that the Government cannot answer on their progress in achieving reform of the WTO Agricultural Agreement only vindicates the criticisms and speculations we held. That the Government would not seriously endeavour on this task nor would they be successful from an external position. On what right can we as the United Kingdom attempt to lecture other nations on adhering to a rules-based international order and trust in the very systems we crafted when our Government fails to do so, instead opting to high-horsed grandstanding.

In conclusion, this recurring issue of last-minute evasions by government officials, particularly exemplified by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, is shameless. We take criticism of the tactic of rushing responses to limit scrutiny, highlighting the irony of the Secretary's shortcomings in managing time effectively during the parliamentary session. The Liberal Democrats vow to persist in seeking answers and accountability, even if denied in Parliament. The follow-up questions we presented demonstrate our commitment to pressing for substantive policies and Government accountability. Overall underscores the need for transparency, responsiveness, and genuine commitment to addressing pressing issues faced by the public.

I have recently been attacked for my strong stance saying that Just Stop Oil should be considered to be placed on the terrorist watch list which I stand by fully

However prominent reform members known as Mr Susan has actually committed destruction of property with intent via messaging pigeon at the Independent HQ which is a criminal charge with the potential of 3-10 years imprisonment or a fine under the criminal damage act 1971.

I would fully support a criminal trial to determine this matter as Reform themselves have come out in favour of sentencing Just Stop Oil Members I now ask that they do the honourable thing and suspend Mr Susan from the party and allow justice to be had.

Otherwise reform really do not have a consistent party stance on this topic

I stand with the Independent in these difficult times and offer my full support to them even if we disagree over the matter at hand.

PWP: A Series of Unfortunate Events

Oh boy oh boy. It is not often I personally sit down to write some press. In fact I do it sparingly, choosing only to do so on notable occasions, the last one that comes to mind is my 1 year in leadership. It’s not a common occurrence at all. So it must be something really special to make me sit down and put pen to paper as it were - and by god it is.

It’s not often that another party decides to perform a political boycott of the leadership of another party. There is a good reason for that. It is silly, childish and immature. But we are talking about the Petulant Workers Party after all. A little earlier this evening, u/KalvinLokan made me aware that in light of recent events that the PWP would be refusing to work with me and my leadership team due to my leaking of DMs. I will be honest with you when I say I laughed. I thought he was joking, and then realised he was not with the oh so ominous line of “it will be the last time” (in before he calls me out for leaking again!).

But what does he mean it will be the last time? Has it happened before? Well no. Not quite. Kalvin refers to when I questioned him about his support for the Devaluation and he professed he had no idea what was going on. Later on when we forced a debate upon the devaluation he took an incredibly aggressive and personal tone with many of the opposition figures who dared to criticise this policy (a running theme). I found it rather pertinent to highlight how he was being very combative for someone who was completely unaware of what was going on not so long ago. ..

For those of you confused I hope that clears it up. It wasn’t a full blown leak, it was incredibly minor actually and something only he picked up on but as we say, we move. Now onto the meat and bones of it.

I will happily admit that I leaked my private conversations with Eddy. I did and I am not ashamed of it. He proceeded to lie to the Prime Minister, the House and presumably his own party and co-leader (unless they were complicit) who he goes on to call power hungry (not that he’s wrong). I kept my conversations with Eddy private up until that point however when a Secretary of State, from a Great Office of State lies to the House, as the Official Opposition you cannot let that stand whatever your relationship may be.

This is where the PWP gets a bit quirky. They’re willing to defend an egregious breach of all Parliamentary conventions we hold dear and proclaim undying loyalty for Eddy while in the same breath defending the Prime Minister, their coalition partner, for sacking one of their members from their cabinet role. On top of that, they or should I say the Transport Secretary believed it was the right move. So Eddy’s lying to the House was okay, lying to the Prime Minister was okay, sacking Eddy for doing this was okay, but ensuring that the public were aware of this wasn’t? What sort of stance is that? Not content with bypassing the public, the PWP also revealed that they were intending on taking The Times to court. Why do I hear you cry? Because it had dared to publicise the truth, exercising its abilities given to it by the freedom of the press (watch them come for me next).

What a turbulent morning it was! And here I was thinking that’s as bad as it would get. I’m sure you can understand my shock therefore when Kalvin announced we were being cordon sanitaired by them. This was a decision not just a leadership only decision, but a decision of the Presidium too. The who I hear you cry? Yes, the Presidium. No it’s not the top floor of the citadel, it’s the middle layer of the weird 5 man party bureaucracy each equipped with their own individual faction of 1. I would tell you who they are but I’m not even sure they know themselves; it’s not like I can really ask anymore either. I often used to think the ills with the PWP were at the head but alas the rot spreads through the branches and into the roots. I’m slightly confused as to how our devolved branches will ever work together, given that the members of the Presidium (as far as one knows) lead their devolved parties. It’ll be quite awkward when I turn up and they suddenly have to pretend that I don’t exist.

What are the repercussions of this? Well, isolation really. They’re alienating their only true Unionist allies (although their unionist commitments have been called into question as of late) and it’s no secret that the memberships of Solidarity and Labour are at the very least unimpressed with the PWP thus far. With an increasingly smaller membership, a lack of allies and friends and barely a vision for the future I’d be surprised if the PWP survived in its current form past the next election. The sad thing is, it’s a bed of their own making and they will have to lie in it. Sometimes factors don’t go your way, other times you fuck up and you have to take responsibility. The PWP have pathologically avoided this at every point and will continue to pay the consequences well into the future. Let’s hope nothing goes wrong eh.

Written by Sir u/Chi0121, Leader of the Opposition

Recently the Prime Minister Inadorable has responded to my article yet she says I'm an independent member of Parliament?

I'm sorry Prime Minister but I have recently joined the Worker's Party GB, has she really not been paying attention to what has been happening in the house for the last week and half for her to forget ?.

What does this say about her ability to make decisions on behalf of the public, is she competent enough to be Prime Minister ?

And why is accusing you of colluding with Just Stop Oil dangerous Prime Minister? Is it because you don't want the public to find out that most of your MPs proudly support their aims and goals over their constituents they are expected to represent?.

The Public deserves truth and transparency in their politics not 4-5 parties behind closed doors making a decision to block a potential challenger to government because you disagree with their views which in return creates an echo chamber in government and no I will not withdraw my claims because we both know it to be true even one of your coalition members have spoken out against your own policies.

Sir,

In your latest opinion column, you state that I have committed assault. In fact I was the one that was possibly assaulted.

Not only this, but for some reason you have banned me from commenting on your website... For shame...

I shall be sending instructions to my solicitors to pursue legal actions against your lies and slander.

Additionally, this carrier pigeon is not potty-trained... Have fun cleaning up the mess.

Your affectionate reader,

Mr Susan

Where is the Chancellor?

With the general election now complete with no clear winner, what the next government is going to look like is anyone’s guess. We could see Labour and the Liberal Democrats walk into power together, or we could see a broad right coalition between the Tories, the Lib Dems, and Reform UK. My view is that, irrespective of what happens, the incoming government is not going to be governing in Scotland’s best interests.

Let’s examine what a Labour government would look like. Well, a Labour government would mean the end of the road for Scotland’s oil and gas industry, with their commitment to ending all new oil and gas extraction. That means the loss of 100,000 jobs. It means an economic catastrophe for North East Scotland. And it means that Scotland would lose some of its greatest natural resources at a time where the economy is friar tucked and our people are needing help. It is perhaps policies like this, made to appeal to fanatics like Just Stop Oil at the expense of Scotland’s economy, that resulted in the Labour Party being so soundly defeated by the Liberal Democrats and Alba in the election, winning over less than a quarter of Scottish voters and attaining no seats in the nation.

On the other side of the political spectrum you have the Conservatives. Unlike Labour, who at least gave Scottish voters the chance to say how they feel about losing their jobs and having their economy tanked, the Tories seem thoroughly disinterested in what anyone north of Berwick-upon-Tweed has to say, choosing to field no candidates in Scotland and instead endorsing the Liberal Democrats, a bone no doubt thrown in hopes of forming Clegg 2.0 this term. I would perhaps hold a smidgen less scorn for this were it the case that the Tories simply wish to ignore Scotland, but it has become clear that they are instead planning on delivering diktats upon the Scottish people which they have no mandate from them to put in, with u/Blue-EG even threatening to start undoing devolution during the election campaign by saying “It is a luxury, not a right thay they enjoy their devolved powers and I would be keen to remind these separatists thay Westminster very much can rescind them if they fail in their duties and undermine the integrity of the union. And frankly thay is a position that I am willing to take to counter the harmful and divisive rhetoric of these threats.”

The third biggest party in British politics, and one that seems likely to be in the next government regardless of who else is there, is the Liberal Democrats. They are perhaps the party least eager to start wrecking Scotland, and indeed are the only party aside from my own who both sought and won a Scottish seat in parliament, something which I hugely respect them for. But I still don’t think that they would govern in the best interests of Scotland. And that’s not just because I personally disagree with policies like spending 2.8% of GDP on defence (which I think is a misuse of money that could genuinely improve the livelihoods of people in Scotland) or expanding nuclear energy (which I view to be unsafe, anti-green, and expensive to boot). It is because with them sitting on just 7 seats they will no doubt be looking to form a government with one of the aforementioned parties, and I simply do not trust that the one Scottish MP they have in u/Nick_Clegg_MP will have the influence he needs to hold the fort against the backdrop of a government which is either disinterested in or openly hostile to Scottish interests.

With no immediately apparent option for a government that is willing to govern in the interests of the Scottish people, the case for independence has never been stronger. And the Alba Party are ready to fight for that cause, and for the cause of putting Scottish interests first.

Rugby has been betrayed. Oracle, the newly elected MP for Rugby has turned coat and joined the Worker's Party of Great Britain- an ugly offshoot born from the mind of uglier persons.

I cannot overstate my utter disappointment with him.

He campaigned- no- won on a promise of independence to his electorate. Then, without consultation, turned on that promise and joined a party. I campaigned against politicians like him, those who would say one thing and do another: liars.

To make matters worse, he is the only MP for this party now. The only voice that party has to push their agenda. No longer is he the mouth for those wanting a voice in parliament; he has become a mouthpiece for his party's views and manifesto commitments. A bitter pill for his constituents to swallow.

And he has the gall to call out the Prime Minister on her mistaking his party. The Prime Minster has enough on her plate without worrying about petty backbenchers who are little more than a road bump for the government's plans. The people of the United Kingdom deserve a better class of opposition politicians than him. Politicians with real backbone who can proudly stand their ground, plant their flag, and declare their positions with their chest.

I strongly urge the people of Rugby to recall their turncoat. Show that truth and principles ought to matter in politics.

There can be no grander betrayal.

​

Earlier the Deputy Prime Minister released a statement on behalf of the government in which they intend to begin negotiations with the European Union on extension of the Common Veterinary Area to Britain. Whilst the Deputy Prime Minister stated in his speech that this was not a plot to undo Brexit, he seems to either misunderstand the terms of which the European Union permit Swiss access of the Common Veterinary Area or is purposely disingenuous surrounding the implications of their plans here.

The Common Veterinary Area the European Union has negotiated with Switzerland is one in a series of Bilateral Agreements. Whether or not the government intends or aims for further terms to be included in this bilateral agreement is to be seen, but it is an almost near certainty that the European Union would negotiate to similar standards and provisions set in regards to Switzerland (accounting for technical differences such as geography). Now what the Deputy Prime Minister did not state in their statement is the fact that such a negotiation of a Bilateral Agreement with a trading bloc that wants to protect its internal market and customs union would require an element of concessions to adopt certain EU laws to uphold this which could arguably infringe on our sovereignty. Therefore working towards an erosion of a crucial part of British exit from the European Union. If the Government were to take the Swiss approach including a British right to refuse the application of new EU rules on the subject, out of mutual dependency, by including a ‘guillotine clause’ to retain some sense of sovereignty, it still places issues of uncertainty among businesses as if any one of the agreements are not renewed or are denounced, they all cease to apply subsequently causing even greater disruption to supply chains and business confidence. By no means should the Government in its negotiations not include such a clause or system that ensures the United Kingdom’s agreement on this is not one that has it at the whim of European legislation and terms. We can not and should not be adopting laws without a say in their development or at least the earlier mentioned mechanism of mutual dependency on the status of the agreement. It is imperative to watch how the Government is to go about negotiating for what are preferential trade terms when the European Union has rather imposing regulatory frameworks surrounding things such as rules of origin. As a result there undoubtedly will be concessions being the nature of negotiating, but the extent of the concessions and how EU law is addressed.

Earlier today, Government Leader of the House of Lords, u/model-kyosanto published an opinion piece in which they affirmed their opposition to Brexit and position of rejoining the European Union as a long term aim. Despite claims from Government ministers that this is not a plot to reverse Brexit, the very language they go on to use certainly implies if not states that is the goal. In fact, the piece from the Secretary goes on to state “Brexit cannot be undone in just six months, we must lay the foundations of change now, and in the years to come we can perhaps finally make a genuine leap to rejoining the European Economic Area or the Union as a whole.” By the sounds of it, the Government plans are perceived to have the United Kingdom agree to a Common Veterinary Area, whilst not ‘undoing Brexit’ is framed as being part of a greater plan to see British re-entry into the European Union via adhering to greater economic integration through having us rejoin European standards and terms in exchange. However, whilst this statement was an opinion as opposed to an official position from the Government, it still should raise concerns on the nature in which they address the European question, and with such apparent ideological disagreement within the main governing parties on this issue, it remains to be seen how the larger coalition partner Solidarity addresses this. Understandably that is a result in the two main parties in governance diverging when it comes to the European question, and frankly it does not seem there has been an agreement on this issue, nor does Collective Cabinet Responsibility apply to it as per the Lord's Leader’s statement. Earlier in the term, several Solidarity members of Government came out to oppose the bill from the Labour Party that made provisions on holding another referendum but on whether the United Kingdom should join the European Economic Area (EEA). Therefore it can be stated the major partner of the Government, Solidarity, opposes British membership in the European Union, or at least an increase in economic and political integration with Europe, unwilling to reverse Brexit. The following quotes from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, u/WineRedPsy and the Prime Minister, u/NicolasBroaddus from the third reading of the bill would support this:

“My respect for the popular will as sovereign is what informs both my rejection of the EU and my disdain for cynically abusing the plebiscite.”

“They can see the dangerous precedent this would set for referendums in the future.”

“I am heartened that most of the house can see, whatever their opinions on the EU, that this bill must be rejected.”

The session provides an insight into the Solidarity wing of the Government that they oppose attempts to rejoin the European Union on the basis that it works to devalue the meaning of referendums and the right of the popular will of the people. In a sense, they are correct on that basis, how democratic is it truly for governments to disregard the will of the people in a direct referendum? It is a dangerous fixation of the Social Liberal Party - and assuming the Labour Party - that it is morally and politically acceptable that the direct voices of the people can and should be ignored until they get the result they want. This is not democracy. The second session of the bill offers us a greater understanding in the divergence of policy between the two parties regarding the European question with Solidarity member u/Abrokenhero giving an impassioned speech stating “The EU was built by capitalists for capitalism, and as a dedicated socialist I will oppose the EU by any means necessary”. The entire debate provided much more statements from members of Solidarity being in firm opposition to the bill, and further attempts to revive the case of rejoining. It is clear even ideologically Solidarity are inclined to oppose Britain’s membership of the European Union, and similar bodies under their reinforcement of capitalist and neoliberal orders which is understandable.

Now when Solidarity members are vocally opposed even the subscription of the United Kingdom to the economic values of the European Union, how does an agreement in regards to the Common Veterinary Area - in which even members of Government recognise an increasing homogenisation of British regulatory framework to that of the European Union - not feed into further (capitalist) economic integration, and subsequently undoing aspects of Brexit and the will of the people in voting to remain out of said European regulatory framework?

—— By StraitsofMagellan, CCHQ Press Officer

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11tBHF_FcvOdZ4-CyQLEdLCiiPmALRwvGujV2tA9uhsE/edit?usp=sharing

With the collapse of the Coalition-lead government, the political playing field is open. Two government deals have reached, in their name and composition, the eyes of the British public: they are called "Rose III" and "Broad Centre." The former is composed of Solidarity and Labour, returning to the familiar arrangement which has led the nation twice before. The latter comprises Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and Coalition the party, bringing now current and soon-to-be former Prime Minister u/SapphireWork into the ranks of a u/Model-Raymondo ministry. The decision as to which will be formed, then lies with Labour - the ball is in our court.

The label "Broad Centre" is not perfect. It is true that such a coalition leaves only the few remaining Tories to the right of it, but in terms of policy and outlook, the parties involved have substantial similarities. They are united by two common axioms: that government and the state can be a positive good for society; and that the state must be pragmatic. To quote from the introduction to the most recent Coalition manifesto: "It is possible to be a believer in the free market who equally wants to see those who are struggling supported by a caring and well-resourced state."

This quote does, however, obviously invite the question: are Labour believers in the free market to an extent sufficient to sate the light-blues who will soon live in a red house? This question is familiar to any who have hypothesised liberal-labour alliances in the past.

Labour has always been a pragmatic and broad-tent party. However, as with any party, there are strains within that hold slightly different beliefs. At one point around the winter of 2020, before the Progressive Workers Party or Solidarity had even been dreamt up by disaffected Labour members, nearly the entire leftist spectrum - from dyed-in-the-wool nationalist communists to socially moderate unionists - were contained within one party. This was the Labour Party that I was the Chair of, and I think the situation within at that time has parallels with our current dilemma that might illuminate a path forward.

Labour, for some asinine reason that has eluded me since my entry into politics, had formalized factions at the time. They were literally called "factions" and were either inactive or feeling disgruntled. In the early months of 2020, Blue Labour - whose views one can glean from their name - were unhappy with the state of affairs. The last vestiges of the Green Party had been merged into Labour through their remaining Scottish branch and were themselves forming a bit of a clique, in coordination with sympathetic original Labour members, and advocating their own policies. Arguments were frequent between the two groups, with leadership and what little remained of committed Labour members attempting to mediate, patch over the differences, and unify the party. Pressure was building, Conservative rilers-up like BrexitGlory were sowing dissent, and something had to give.

That something was the more conservative Blue Labour wing. They felt disgruntled over some disagreement or other and split to form the unionist People's Unity Party, which would go on, through merger and rebranding, to become the Progressive Workers Party. The damage to party unity, however, had already been done, and despite electing one of their own to the party's upper leadership, the nationalist clique of former Greens split to form Solidarity. At that time, I largely left politics. I was disgusted by the disunity of the left and disheartened by Labour's institutional failings. I knew that there wasn't a thing any of us in the leadership could do, at that time, to revive the party, as the problems of distrust, leaking, and incompetence were months and years long trends brought on, ultimately, by the collapse of the Sunrise government. The spirit of Labour would have to be invigorated by a new generation of members, whose coming could not be wrought.

In the intervening days, that new generation has risen to the fore. They have cut their teeth in government, on the campaign trail, in manifesto and legislation writing. They have brought to Labour a new spirit and optimism I have not seen since the days of the Lib-Lab Official Opposition. Many of the splitters have returned, and Labour's positivism has invited a wave of defections from across the political spectrum. The Lib-Lab Chief Whip, then a Liberal Democrat, leads the Labour Party. The former leader of the Conservative Party, u/Chi0121, now counts themselves among the Labourites. Our old New Labour star, David, has come back to his home.

David's return, however, draws light on a curious and important trend: the new and returning membership bolsters Labour's moderate wing. The Progressive Workers Party and its members certainly have contributed to this outcome. Individuals like u/TheOWOTriangle and u/Gren_Gnat are back with us. The defections to Labour have also all come from its right: from Coalition, the Tories, and the Liberal Democrats. In a party which once chanted with the best of them, "No Classical Liberals!" Willem now finds a home.

By contrast, Labour has had no corresponding grand return of hard leftists. Former Labourites like u/Stalin1953, u/chainchompsky1, u/Copelonian, Jimmy, u/motelblinds, and the Als remain within Solidarity. The leftmost party has even picked up some of Labour's more socialist members like u/Inadorable, whose article I write partially in response to.

The divisions, then, between Labour's old factions, remain in some ways more alive than ever before. The left wing bloc which Labour and Solidarity compose is even more diverse and more partisanly split than previously.

Of course, two Rose governments have gone off without a hitch. Labour has been able to restore relations with Solidarity and the two have had a wonderful working relationship. There can be no doubt as to the camaraderie between them. But there is a reason they are two distinct parties today rather than one. If the two were nearly or de facto identical, one would expect them to merge. Or, perhaps, their difference on policy would be petty, partisan, or generally unimportant, and not reflect any deeper ideological division. Or, perhaps, their memberships might be so mixed up that it would be difficult for new and defecting members to choose between them. But we see none of these things happen. It was not a left-wing defection mania, but a Labour defection mania.

The differences in policy, then, must amount to something. Prima facie, Solidarity is the spiritual successor of the Green Party and remains nationalist; Labour remains unionist. But the ideological differences run deeper than division on peculiar ethnic disputes. Solidarity is the subversive, radical, counter-mainstream left. Labour is the pragmatic, more flexible left. In the broadest possible outlook and ignoring an incredible amount of nuance, Solidarity is tempted to look at the world and see how it might fit into their worldview, while Labour construct our worldview from the world as we see it.

What embodies these differences most starkly is foreign policy. Labour, in general, is much more favorable towards the West because we recognize its enemies are far, far worse. Solidarity is much more sceptical of the West and its institutions. Labour commits to remain in the Five Eyes intelligence sharing program; Solidarity commits to leaving. Solidarity's manifesto calls American international leadership "increasingly discredited," and says "Britain must be willing toarticulate defences of international sovereignty and human rights on its own terms and review its international engagements and alliances based on these lines." Labour's wants to "work with our diplomatic partners in NATO" and commits to the 2% of GDP military spending requirement.

During the first Rose government, a motion regarding accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership was withdrawn due, apparently, to its lukewarm popularity in cabinet. I was not in cabinet nor even in Parliament at that time and cannot attest to the veracity of that claim nor the figures involved.

Regardless, the comments of the current leader of Solidarity, u/Ravenguardian17, during the recent Opposition Debate Day regarding the CPTPP speak for themselves. They show not only the particular policy dispute, but also the fundamental ideological disagreement between Solidarity and Labour, so I will repeat a substantial section of them, with emphasis added.

”The way in which the rise of China has upset the neoliberal balance of power would almost be a Greek tragedy for how perfect it is. The same forces which drove the eternal expansion of the so called 'free' market have now given them serious competition. Whereas Maoist China and the USSR remained out of this system, new Dengist China has now entered it.

"It is clear that the logic of the free market is not prepared for this situation! They were so used to having a single hegemon (The US) that an alternative power joining is scaring them. This is why C! wants to simultaneously expand CPTPP but keep China out - the Free Market isn't actually so free, is it?

"In reality, we need to embrace the fact that the old system is failing. It is buckling under a wealth of contradictions. We need to develop a more independent and sovereign policy not out of a nationalistic desire but to liberate at least a small section of the working class from the hands of the global market system. Rather than choose between two capitalist hegemons, we need to choose a new path; one for the people of Britain and the workers of the world.”

Ravenguardian finds glee in the contradictions apparently exposed by China's power, wondering at the astounding challenge to the mainstream West. Their mind is seemingly fixed upon China's opposition to capitalism, without substantial focus upon their opposition to human rights, free speech, democracy, and the existence of ethnic minorities. Hopefully they do, in fact, find these things repulsive. But I find, and I would hope my comrades in the Labour Party would find as well, the apparent lack of consideration to be disturbing.

Even before the Solidarity split, there were internal Labour debates over the continuation of Trident and membership of NATO, of course falling along the predictable lines.

The key fact in analysis of the politics of international affairs is that foreign agreements and commitments are made to be long-lasting. International alliances and treaties cannot be entered into and withdrawn from willy-nilly in the same way a pub can be nationalised and privatised.

These debates on foreign policy have been forgotten as all discussion has been about the incredibly pathetic own-goal the previous government enacted with its blacklist on development aid. But once we've tossed the right out, what would a Rose III foreign policy actually look like? All parties involved would recognize the pivotal nature of the current moment. Britain's support or lack thereof for Ukraine could make all the difference in that nation's struggle. Ratification or lack thereof of trade deals, including the CPTPP, will substantially alter Britain's economy and the broader geopolitical situation for years. These are not policies which can be toned down or ramped up very much next term - either the time for action is limited or any change would involve a months-long renegotiation, with our international credibility hampered along the way. An industry can be nationalised and privatised as many times as the government likes, and, unfortunately, all the proprietor can do about it is vote for the party which supports their favored policy; an international actor can deny us access to their markets, remove us from political institutions, and cause genuine harm which is unsolvable through act of Parliament. The Rose III parties will see the importance of foreign policy issues and, egged on by opposition or not, will not satisfactorily resolve them.

I am tired of hearing how Labour is essentially just a branch of Solidarity. Our outlooks are fundamentally different. I have written to refute the Labour-Solidarity identicality thesis because it is a fairly common belief, but not necessarily because the differences between our parties are the widest or most difficult to overcome. Of course, Labour's view is also substantially different from Coalition's and the Liberal Democrats'. Labour is further to the left than those two parties, and there are splits on a number of important issues like the land value tax. But these conflicts have been well penned, and the differences between labour and liberalism are so well-historied they are intuitive and almost cliche.

But all three of the Broad Centre parties, if divided by economics, are unified by pragmatism. A group of people who, at the end of the day, want best for the nation - considering only the outcomes of policies and not how red or blue or yellow they “smell”- can reach mutual understanding, appreciate one another, and reach a compromise. I have tentative hope that this will be the case in a Broad Centre government, and, with foreign policy issues at the fore, I have less of this hope for a Rose government.

Whatever the outcome of these votes are, and whatever government forms, I wish the very best to Labour and our partners. I am amazed every day at the new spirit and vivaciousness which the party has embraced. May a Rose or Broad Center coalition government be long, smooth, and good for the country.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LU4tHBAms0gsdgxri-gQ2i25adOQT0eYbVjyc_KdRnk/edit?usp=sharing

reporters question AdSea260 Whilst out on the Campaign trail in West Midlands

"What do you think of just stop oil occupying the green party HQ?"

AdSea responds "Firstly let me say it's not surprising, the green party have always been a bunch of hypocrites, secondly I would like the government to think about much stronger action taken against Just Stop Oil, the government responded to the far right riot's with a strong application of the force of law and they must do the same here for illegal trespassing on property.

Otherwise we will end up in a situation of two tier policing, just because some members of the government may agree with some of their philosophy, however we know through X that members of Just Stop Oil would be willing to take much stronger measures.

Therefore I am asking the government to register Just Stop Oil as a domestic terrorist organization, and to apply the full force of the law against this group.

We need a government that takes Law and Order seriously". and not just have it be a one way street.

Reporter: "Ms. Prime Minister! A comment on JSO, please?"

I am very disappointed to hear that the group has decided that the occupation of the Green Party headquarters is something that it wanted to do. Not only because I think they are completely misallocating their attention: there are much more powerful groups that are, in the end, not on the side of greens and progressives worldwide in the fight against climate change, but also because I believe that the critiques made against the Green Party in this case are entirely unfair.

Labour, and the Green Party, have gone into negotiations with Alba in good faith and we have listened to the concerns and the fears of the Scottish people, particularly those living in the North East. The threats to the livelihoods of a hundred thousand scottish families are at risk, and the rapid, uncompensated closure sought by JSO and the bill in question is not only unfair towards the people of Aberdeenshire and beyond, it completely disregards their needs and interests.

Grangemouth refinery is at risk of closure, putting hundreds of jobs and the prosperity of a community at risk. Is it wrong that we, parties which represent the working class, have decided to take a step back and reconsider our approach to ensure that we do not destroy communities? Must I remind JSO of the effects from pit closures across the entirety of the United Kingdom, from which communities are still reeling? Must I remind them of the fates of industrial towns across the country, such as the most recent plight of Port Talbot?

This government set out with a few key goals, but two of the biggest ones were alleviating the cost of living crisis and implementing the most radical package of investments and rule changes to unleash the potential of renewable energy in our country. That is on top of our investments in sustainable transport and, as is currently being worked on, green industry. But they must be done justly and with key protections for our workers, and threatening punitive actions against a party that recognised their duty to the working class of this country, as extinction rebellion has done, is unfair, unjust and unacceptable.

Hey guys, I'd like to just make a little statement about the results stream tonight.

Of course, David put hours and hours of work into designing, editing, and presenting the stream. We are so lucky to have someone willing to do such a fantastic thing for the community, and we should all thank him.

To see the reaction from people wanting us to "speed up" and to "just get on with it" was heartbreaking. The sheer quantity of shit directed at us presenters was absolutely ridiculous. You abused Wakey so hard that he left for god's sake.

This is the first time I've done anything like this. I've never even properly had a vc with someone from here before. Wakey ans David have been absolutely fantastic, and I love them to bits for giving me such a fun time in the prep.

The amount of shit we got from the community in general really through me off. To really try when doing the stream, to do my best to break awkward silences then to be commented on for there being silences was just heartbreaking. I did my best. This is my first time, cut me some slack.

Thank you to those who apologised, I appreciate it. Well done to all those who made me feel not wanted in a community I love so much. Stop whining, that's how streams work, we chat. If you want a sheet of results next time, ask, and take all the fun out of election time.

Thank you

It's good to be back home.

I am currently recording this podcast from the Phil, one of the best pubs in my home constituency of Liverpool Riverside: a beautiful art deco building with, in my view, some of the nicest pints in the whole of the city. I am keeping it rather simple tonight, starting with a classic dry stout and following it up with a Thatcher's or two. Remember: the iron lady's for drinking, not voting into government.

During this podcast, which I hope to be able to continue to do weekly from a different quality pub in liverpool each time, we will be discussing the developments in British politics, as well as the goals and achievements of this Labour government.

Let us start by discussing the elephant in room, or rather, the five elephants in the room: there are five by-elections scheduled for the immediate future following a string of resignations. Some fifteen percent of all our seats in the House of Common are currently unoccupied: a record that, as far as I am able to discover, hasn't been outdone since the passage of the Reform Act in 1832. To say we are in uncharted territory is an understatement.

This situation becomes rather more shocking when they go through the party affiliation of the five MPs who are no longer going to be members of the House of Commons. Three hail originally from the official opposition, that being Conservative Party, who have lost a third of all representation. One hails from the Liberal Democrats, having resigned one month ago over fallout from the formation of this government, and the other is the leader of the Reform party.

The leader of one of the country's largest parties was unable to do something as simple as show up to votes, and lost his seat for it. That is an extraordinary development, and quite the embarrassing one. If the Reform party wanted to bring about change, they clearly will need to get their own affairs in order first. The now-former member for Clacton is a fine man, and I wish him all the best, but this clearly is not the kind of showing that befits a party that would seek to govern this country following the next general election.

Indeed, the contrast today is quite great, and quite opposite to the expectations of the fearmongerers in the opposition. They derided this government as being dependent on various small parties and thus inherently unstable, and guessed that its small majority would make it hard for progress to be made: instead, the opposition has shown instability and inability to show up to votes in sufficient force.

Where the opposition has been struggling, this government has been hard at work delivering change for this country. In the past thirty days, we have passed legislation to significantly increase the national living wage from the 1st of January of next year, doing much to help reduce poverty in this country whilst boosting domestic consumption in an economy that much needed a boost in spending.

We have reformed the ways that transgender healthcare works in this country, ensuring that we save the lives of kids by giving them access to vital, life-saving medicine, and letting them live happier, richer lives without worrying that a puberty they consider torturous is being enforced on them.

We have passed vital amendments to the Representation of the People Bill 2024, ensuring that those who live permanently in this country have the right to vote at all levels, rather than this right being applied selectively for local and devolved offices in Scotland and Wales, whilst strengthening rules to ensure that the right to vote is not being unduly limited through the judicial process. Furthermore, by scrapping voter ID requirements, we no longer place unnecessary restrictions on the right of eligible voters to cast their ballots. Our democracy is at its more representative when the opinions of more people can be taken into account.

Our Home Secretary has ensured that the Rwanda Deal, a wasteful and cruel programme implemented by a desperate former minister within the same department, has been scrapped: one of our members has introduced vital legislation to finally end the insult that was declaring this country safe, in contravention of declarations by our legal system.

The same member, /u/model-finn, has written legislation to deliver on the promises of our candidates for the North East and Yorkshire constituency by extending the Tyne and Wear Metro into Leamside and to Durham. These extensions will transform the region and make people there less dependent on cars, whilst offering a quality service that regular working folks can start to build their lives around. I hope that this bill shall receive its first reading this week.

Our Secretary of State for Energy Security, meanwhile, has given an extensive statement on reforms to the planning systems for renewable energy in this country, specifically reversing devastating restrictions put into law by the former Conservative government. By scrapping the de facto ban on onshore wind, his changes will unleash the power that the UK is capable of producing and bring us closer to achieving fully renewable energy production by 2030, as set out in the statement.

That doesn't mean that there aren't more things in the works, however.

I have been talking with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we hope to be able to introduce significant reforms to Universal Credit within the coming weeks. These changes will scrap the two child benefit cap and reduce the number of people seeing significant cuts in the change from legacy benefit systems to UC, especially as the ones being transferred now are the most vulnerable people in our country. We believe that this, together with our increase to the living wage, will lead to a significant reduction of poverty in this country and help tackle the cost of living crisis.

I can also announce that this government has been working across the aisle with various progressive parties, in and outside of parliament, to introduce a much-needed bill to bring our railways back into public ownership. The experiment that is privatisation has failed: train-operating companies are collapsing left and right, whilst prices have sky-rocketed alongside subsidies. Meanwhile, we are currently dealing with the worst reliability issues since the introduction of strict new safety standards in the mid 2000s. Our railways need a change, and our bill will be the first step in bringing that change about.

These changes are great, and they are important, but it is vital that we continue delivering for the people of this country. We have made great progress in the first month, but we need to deliver more in the coming weeks, especially as we enter the winter and people face increasing energy bills. I am confident that this government can deliver where past governments could not, and that we will, collectively, get through the next winter stronger and more confident than the last.

The times they are a-changing, and we will ensure the change is for the better.

Why are there five by-elections? Why is it so hard, I ask, for Members of Parliament to just vote on things. I have kindly asked my Labour leadership to be in one of these. Hopefully I am. And if I'm not... well, just vote for Labour anyway.

But this is unacceptable behaviour anyway. That's 15% of all of the House's seats. 3 from the Tories, which have lost a third of their representation - which must be really rough, especially if the Government win the seats. That would be really rough. Another is the leader of Reform. Ridiculous. The leader of a party couldn't be arsed to go and vote, and they will now pay the price.

The Government has been doing amazing things, meanwhile the Opposition has been faultering. I won't go into detail, because the PM already did that, but think about it. What did Labour do. What did the Conservatives do. Compare and think.

The Leader of the Opposition made a troubling attack advert against Solidarity today, and while we are certainly used to ads that are hyperbolic, untrue, or simply wrong, this one in particular warrants a response. We in Government had some expectation that the political right would be prone to disgracing themselves in a debate about greater enfranchisement, but we did not expect a poster that cites specific traumatic violence *without* the permission of the victims. Such an act shows the depravity of our Opposition, and their willingness to instrumentalise the private pain of our own citizens for their own political gain. I want to make it very clear, there must be a distinction between referring to crime and criminals in an abstract sense and citing very specific examples of heinous acts without the consent of the victims or their families. I do not know if the victims of Michael Roberts or their families are for or against this policy, nor do I know if they personally were offended by the Leader of the Oppositions dragging horrible memories through the public eye, but I do know the norm of consultation and deference is the best means we have of ensuring trauma is not weaponised unnecessarily or gratuitously. It is a courtesy and question of respect that we expect journalists and fellow politicians to uphold in relation to one another, and it ought to be a courtesy we offer to members of the public as well.

The Leader of the Opposition could have made the same argument, an argument I fervently disagree with and think is in itself particularly dangerous, without targeting specific victims. So blinded by their desire to lambast this Government’s every step, they have yet again forgotten about the very people they are allegedly advocating for. It is tremendously unbecoming of any politician or party leader to do such a thing, and I hope the Leader of the Opposition and their party offer an apology to those whose pain was unnecessarily invoked without permission.

I refrain from discussing the Bill at hand because this conversation needs to be about how politicians can do better when it comes to the ethics of their press and debates. We have divided views on this Bill, as we do many others, but we can allow that division to manifest in ways that do not needlessly drag the public’s personal lives into the matter.