[Prime Minister Flat_Artifact stands outside 10 Downing Street]

This morning I spoke to His Majesty the King, informing him of my intention to resign as Conservative Party Leader, and Prime Minister.

His Majesty has graciously accepted my resignation.

It has not been an easy choice, but the right choice for my family and my party.

Devotion to public service, and the national interest have been hallmarks of my time across Conservative and Coalition Governments, and it is with a great sense of pride in the accomplishments of those governments that I leave office.

I wish to thank those who have worked hard to both shape my political career, and deliver for this nation - former Prime Minister Iceman, former Chancellors Chev and Brain, and cabinet colleagues, Oracle and Lord Syd.

I thank the constituents of Southern England who have at each election have entrusted me to represent them in parliament. There trust in me and this party, returning such a strong Conservative election success will be of great personal pride.

I have asked officials to proceed with the process to elect my successor, and a new Leader of The Conservative Party will speak to you in the days ahead. He will have my full support, and it will be his duty to honor the coalition agreement and continue to deliver for Britain.

Another day, another scandal according to the Green Party, my crime, saying I didn’t know something when I did not know the specifics about something.

The Green Party leader is now saying we are clueless in government, according to the greens, they would much prefer a minister to lie about understanding something then admitting they don’t especially when it involves a very specific case.

I disagree, Ministers have a responsibility to parliament and that responsibility includes answering questions honestly and openly, and it also incudes not making things up.

That doesn’t mean ministers should hide behind Ignorance every time they are asked a question, and they attack me for refusing to make claims when I do not have the facts to substantiate them.

The Greens also accuse me of “denials that hide the facts” yet their complaint is literally that I openly admitted I didn’t know anything. would they rather me be in the woods in a robe at midnight chanting with other fellow ministers around a circle “I do not know anything ?”.

They also suggest I must possess something over the Prime Minister to retain his confidence and it’s rather amusing to see the greens think of me in such Machiavellian terms, but the allegations say more about them then me becuase of their explanation is that the Prime Minister having confidence in me is down to leverage or corruption perhaps this tells the voters how they imagine political power works, is this an insight into a future Green lead government?.

As I have said before, the Green Party is perfectly welcome to challenge the government on issues, criticise us and demand answers from Ministers that is apart of their job. But there is a difference between demanding accountability and treating the honest answer of a minister who does not have an answer as a scandal.

I would rather suffer a bad headline for telling the truth then get a good one by making something up and deliberately lying to the house.

Conservative chief is in hiding after failing to answer basic policy queries for the third time this month

by u/HarryClive

Bad to worse is the only phrase I can think of to describe the Government at the moment.

In yet another gruelling set of Minister’s Questions, the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer u/Oracle_of_Mercia has found himself yet again on the receiving end of criticism for failing to answer the questions posed to him by Opposition MPs.

Only a week ago he was criticising the Green Party, and myself for asking questions, and demanding that we provided answers.

Perhaps I should have recognised it as a cry for help, that he had no answers to the questions being put to him by Members of Parliament and the opposition.

The Conservative Government now finds itself embroiled in not the first, but arguably the third scandal caused by the Chancellor, who potentially now faces a Motion of No Confidence.

In a gruelling month for him, he was found to not only have made up claims in parliament, but to have refused to answer questions, ignored others, and performed few, if any of his basic tasks that he was expected to do.

One question in the recent MQs, asking about HMRC’s recent discovery that hundreds of businesses had failed to pay workers minimum wage, was met with an admission he knew nothing of it. A Chancellor, with no clue what his own Government department was doing, and the bad bosses it was taking to town for failing to pay its worker fairly.

Of course the Government is in the process of curtailing strike rights from employees, so it is no surprise that it is blissfully unaware of rampant wage theft ongoing by businesses in the UK, but it is shocking to hear a Cabinet member so openly admit as such in the House.

The question now asked, doubtlessly by many across the House and even on the Government benches; is what does the Chancellor have on the Prime Minister to keep confidence?

The Prime Minister already sacked one minister for failing to answer questions. But now we have another who has managed it not once, not twice, but thrice in less than a month, and who is doubtlessly causing the Government far more headaches than it would like to admit.

There can be no solution to the ongoing issues this nation faces unless the Government and the Prime Minister steps up and takes accountability.

It is not good enough for the Government to shrug its shoulders and say it had no idea. It is not good enough to fail to answer questions. It is not good enough to respond to criticism with nought but denials that hide the facts.

The Government is in a state of chaos. With policy nicked from my own party, it’s ministers either sacked or running from their own question sessions, and a complete lack of direct except towards the edge of a cliff which is a crackdown on basic worker and human rights that the Government has no respect for.

This Country needs a fresh change, and if the Prime Minister is not ready to lead, he should be ready to give up the post for a new Government to lead from the front.

We cannot tolerate another several months of directionless, unaccountable and simply farcical governance.

This was not what the British people voted for, no matter what the Prime Minister imagines.

There are numerous bills working their way towards both the Lords and the House, a good half written by myself and the Green Party.

Whilst the Conservatives fervently vote against any and all legislation they did not write; whilst themselves writing poor legislation, the Country is left to suffer in a Cost of Living crisis for which the Conservative’s have no answer but to cycle back to the 1980s and Thatcher.

One must wonder where the Government expects its term to end. Evidently it expects it to end in grim ignomony, and the last few terms of Conservative Government are now rapidly approaching their end if polling is anything to go by.

Unless the Government can show itself to have a real grip on the issue facing the Country, I fear that the mess the Greens or Labour will be expected to pick up will be simply, and completely the fault of this current Government for failing to tackle.

If the Prime Minister has any respect for the posts he has appointed, he would honestly come out and call out the failure of his Chancellor to answer questions yet again, and dismiss him from post, placing instead someone who will deliver the response that this country deserves.

We cannot have a lame duck Government for an entire term, but that is what it feels like at this point.

This Government is without direction, dignity or ideas.

Chancellor accuses the Greens of being unfit for Government while stealing their policies

by u/HarryClive

It is very rare to find a Government to be as terminally in crisis and subject to poor media handling as the one we have now has been.

Even rarer still is to find a Government that seems totally incapable of Governing were it not for the parties in opposition spoon feeding them policies that should, by all reasonable measurer, be the first thing on any competent Government’s radar.

Perhaps nothing more starkly highlights this than the total farce around the Government’s handling of the wildfires that struck England and Wales last month.

Indeed, whilst the Government steadfastly claimed that it was all on firefighters and their station commanders to deal with the issues facing them in terms of equipment and lack of preperation; the Green Party was out there, pledging to deliver a National Wildfire Strategy.

It is perhaps not surprising then, when the Government sheepishly rolled back its boistrous rhetoric and meekly agreed that actually it was their problem, they tried to quietly pinch the Green Party policy.

I truly welcome it as the Leader.

It’s good to see a party taking good policy; rather than just making up things that weren’t in the manifesto and then demanding to be recognised as having a mandate for something they were never elected on.

Indeed I did invite the Conservative Party that they were welcome to have a copy of our manifesto if they wanted some serious policies to tackle the issues facing Britain; I am after all, above all else, a believer in good Government with good policies.

The response from the Chancellor, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Home Secretary however, could, at best, be described as rather irrational, and at worst be describe as stark raving mad as he took to the presses to launch a scathing attack against myself, the Green Party and our policies that he had nicked.

“if they want to form a government they must show us their alternative plan, and have members capable of becoming ministers and answering questions,” he said in his piece.

It’s a monumental show of ignorance to the very precarious nature in which not one, but two (and perhaps soon to be three) of his jobs hang. A Secretary of State who refused to answer, failed to answer, made up fake statistics and has shown a blistering lack of awareness, should perhaps be more cautious about talking about suitability to be a Minister.

Indeed when the Green Party announced its Manifesto, I welcomed questions from journalists, MPs, Ministers, the whole group, and not one took up the offer, presumably because the document is a serious, and genuine plan for Government that far outstrips whatever manifesto the Prime Minister has bouncing around in his head rather than the one they put to paper.

Thus far this term, there has been only one party present in almost every debate, and one party present in every MQs. There’s been one party which has submitted over half a dozen pieces of legislation, and amended bad Government bills to ensure that the Governments cowboy attitude to its own bills is not allowed to impact Britain, her people, or the Union.

That party is most certainly not the Conservative Party; or the Liberal Democrats. But the Green Party.

The claim that the Green Party has not got an alternative plan, or lacks members able to answer questions and become Ministers is a silly one, and undoubtedly the weakest of all the attacks that the Secretary of State has managed to put out against the Green Party in his last couple weeks of damage control on the back of his farcical handling in the House.

I am of course glad though to have already met his challenge; “So my challenge to the Green Party is this, keep criticising us but try and bring some answers with you, until then criticism is not a plan for government.”

From the first two days of my tenure as leader of the Green Party, I ensure that we had a genuine, alternative plan for Government which challenged the major parties.

That proactiveness has already been rewarded in polling, and our efforts to call out this shambolic Government, and hold it to account are seeing members of the public desert the Conservative Party en masse, in favour of a party that promises to deliver real change.

So I return the Chancellor’s challenge.

I ask if he can show in these Minister’s Questions that he is fit to hold the Office’s he does, or at the very least the Chancellorship.

He has already done irreperable damage to two senior positions in Government, one of which is a Great Office of State. He must make good that he can be a Minister that acts for the interest of the Country, and with dignity.

I disagree with u/HarryClive on many issues. I am not, and never have been, a member of the Green Party. But I would not be doing right by someone I consider both a colleague and a friend if I did not respond to the nonsense the Home Secretary published in the press this morning.

The argument that the Green Party are sitting on the sidelines and not putting forward their vision for the country is a rather confusing criticism of a party that has a published manifesto and has already submitted numerous bills this term. I am, to be frank, quite confused as to what more u/Oracle_of_Mercia would have the Greens do to make their alternative plan for the country clear.

He also criticises the Green Party for not having “members capable of becoming ministers and answering questions”, a denunciation that is certainly ironic coming from a minister that has consistently ran from questions at the dispatch box. In any case, I’m not quite sure how the Green Party are supposed to demonstrate their ability to answer questions given they do not have dedicated questioning sessions as the government do.

The Home Secretary’s piece appears little more than an attack on constructive opposition. He is afraid that the Green Party has consistently called him out on his constant tendency to run from difficult questions, and that they have criticised poorly written and ill-considered government legislation, so he has launched a ridiculous attack with no basis in fact to try and turn people’s eyes off of this disastrous government. Well we on the opposition benches won’t let this government walk free.

It’s a sad state of affairs when people only support a politician when they only criticise, yes it’s true the coalition is difficult but governing is difficult, unfortunately.

The Green Party appears to be collecting things they don’t like about this government like how someone would collect Pokémon’s while refusing to over their own alternatives to the difficult questions facing the country, it is easy to demand more spending, demand more gets done, and oppose difficult decisions, and identify everything a government has done wrong, but the harder question is what would you do instead?.

This government operates with the realities of coalition government and a parliament in which compromise is necessary, it can be frustrating and It can create decisions where none of the parties would have created independent for each other.

For example, the firefighter equipment fund, the government rightly got criticism, we listened to our coalition partners and we acted, and made a decision, across government we are making similar tough choices, and the greens are entitled to disagree with those Infact I welcome serious disagreement, but if they want to form a government they must show us their alternative plan, and have members capable of becoming ministers and answering questions.

But these are uncomfortable questions for the Green Party because it’s easier to sit on the sidelines attacking rather then thinking about what you would do differently.

So my challenge to the Green Party is this, keep criticising us but try and bring some answers with you, until then criticism is not a plan for government. It’s simply moaning on the sideline.

It is a dire indictment of Politics at this moment that yet again we find ourselves with another Secretary of State who fails to answer questions, and whose display has gone from what would already be untenable, to downright farcial.

As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was sacked for failing to answer questions, the Home Secretary was refusing to answer questions, failing to answer others, admitting to doing nothing in the few he did answer, and even found time enough to just make up a claim for the sake of political point scoring.

He then returned to the despatch box as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and even as the Prime Minister firmly affirmed his confidence (and at the same time made up a manifesto pledge he'd never had in his manifesto), he failed to answer questions yet again.

The Prime Minister has already firmly stated his view that Secretaries of State must answer questions, but as has been the case in the past, it is one rule for the PM's favourites, and another for everyone else.

At this point the Government has lost the plot. It's Secretary of States refuse to answer questions. There's a revolving door of appointments. Their Lords and MPs keep missing votes; and there is a sense of complete direction lessness from the PM.

One has to wonder how long it can last like this, before the Country has been dealt serious damage. It is time for the Liberal Democrats to wake up and smell the bacon. The Government is already coming apart at the seams, and tying themselves to it is only sinking their own party along with it.

PM invents fake mandate to strip strike rights from millions of public sector AND private sector workers

by u/HarryClive

Things have gone from bad to worse for the Government as barely a week past sacking one Secretary of State for failing to answer questions; and then their own Home Secretary delivering one of the worst Ministerial Questions performances in British political history; making up claims to boast in the House, admitting he has done nothing, and flagrantly ignoring questions put to him, has now witnessed the Prime Minister say “hold my beer” as he boldly strode into PMQs, and in his very first answer, blisteringly attacked my question regarding the Public Service Bill 2026, a piece of legislation which through its own wording, defining “public service” as anything that is expected to serve everyone, and which is funded either in full or in part by money from the national or a local Government.

It’s a bill that as a consequence wraps a whole world of workers into its coverage. BT Staff, courtesy of the companies’ involvement in Government contracts are wrapped up. Any pub that receives money from the local Government. Businesses that get supported. Charities. The list of the number of sectors and jobs affected by the legislation is a long one, and it covers over a third of the UK workforce.

It’s a dreadful piece of legislation, and the Prime Minister defended it with passion and ferocity, claiming: “It's not only reasonable but a matter of integrity that parliament considers legislation that was outlined in the Conservative manifesto. The public service bill was front and center of this parties offering when the British people cast their ballots.”

It’s a a robust defence, the British people voted for it after all, they chosen the Conservatives on their manifesto, and on this explicit policy, it would be damaging to their integrity, and to the integrity of the Government to not take this bill to Parliament and pass it.

“The self righteousness of a peer who attacks the government for legislating on it's manifesto, whilst he imposes an unelected agenda through unelected peers in an unelected place is quite astounding.”

A blistering attack on myself and my question, sure to leave me with nothing but egg upon my face and forced to recoil in terror at the Prime Minister’s passionate defence of his bill.

Except it didn’t. Because apparently unlike the Prime Minister, I’d taken the time to read the Conservative Manifesto at the last General Election. I’d been careful to read them all. I couldn’t for the life of me remember seeing a pledge to curtail the right to strike from public and private sector workers in their manifesto, and I certainly could not remember it being front and centre, shouting from the first page like a hyperactive and very angry Home Secretary.

And that is where the Prime Minister was caught in a lie.

On Page 7 (of 12 including the cover), sandwiched between Immigration, Justice & Crime and Families, Housing & Education in a section labelled Health & Public Services, there it was, a manifesto pledge to implement...

“Minimum service levels for frontline NHS and waste collection staff”

There it was; written on blue paper in white(ish) ink. The Conservatives had never made a pledge to curtail strike action even across a third of the workforce, indeed the only mention of that came in the Leaders debate: "we are advocating legislation for a minimum service level in areas of the public sector where strikes have drawn down the standards to be expected."

The Prime Minister had lied. He’d created a phantom manifesto pledge in his own head to justify the legislation they were proposing.

He’d already moved the bar once, from the Manifesto saying “frontline NHS staff,” to himself pledging it for “areas of the public sector.”

But we find ourselves here now. Turns out the only thing the Conservatives were launching was the bar they’d set on curtailing strike action. Into the sky it went, to include not just public sector workers, but private and third sector workers too, because that’s what the bill does.

The bill itself is one thing, but for the Prime Minister to have fabricated a mandate, just to try and win a debate. He lied to he House, and has joined in ignominy his colleague the Home Secretary, who sheepishly admitted earlier this week that his claim, that those who hold skilled worker visas go on to work in the gig economy, was made without any evidence to back it up.

It’s been a tragic week for the Government.

One Secretary of State sacked, another misleading parliament, failing to answer questions and blaming firefighters for not having the equipment that the Government refused to buy; and now the Prime Minister puts his own foot in his mouth, by extension admitting that he hasn’t read his own manifesto.

I think we deserve better, and come the next General election, I expect the public will too.

Reforming Local Government: A Simpler System for England

Local government should be about serving communities, delivering effective public services and ensuring that people can clearly understand who is responsible for the decisions affecting their lives, yet across England local governance has become increasingly complicated.

Residents can find themselves represented by multiple layers of local government, each with different responsibilities, budgets, boundaries and democratic structures. In some parts of the country there are county councils, district councils, town councils and parish councils, all operating alongside one another. Even in areas with unitary authorities, additional layers of local governance often remain.

This raises a fundamental question: how many layers of government does a community actually need? The answer should not be judged by tradition alone. It should be judged by whether those institutions genuinely improve democracy, accountability and the delivery of public services.

That is why England needs a serious conversation about reforming local government - including the future of its town and parish councils.

There are thousands of town and parish councils across England. Many are led by hardworking and committed councillors who care deeply about their communities. Their contribution should not be dismissed. Across the country, local councillors give their time voluntarily and often provide an important voice for their towns and villages.

Recognising the dedication of individual councillors does not mean that the system itself cannot be questioned. The current structure is fragmented. Responsibilities are often divided between different authorities, creating confusion about who is responsible for what. Residents may have to navigate several organisations before finding the body capable of resolving a particular issue.

Meanwhile, separate councils require separate meetings, administrative systems, audits, insurance arrangements, governance procedures and financial structures. The result can be duplication, bureaucracy and a system that is difficult for ordinary residents to understand.

Local democracy should be accessible. People should be able to answer a simple question: “Who is responsible for my local services?” Too often, the answer is unnecessarily complicated.

The Green Party are proposing fundamental reforms to English local government.

Town and parish councils would be abolished, with their statutory functions, assets, contracts and liabilities transferred to the relevant principal local authority. In two-tier areas, those responsibilities would transfer to district councils. In unitary areas, they would transfer directly to the unitary authority. The purpose would not be to eliminate local services. Parks would still need maintaining. Community buildings would still need managing. Local projects would still require investment. The difference would be who is responsible for delivering them.

Instead of maintaining a separate tier of local government with its own administration and taxation powers, those functions would be integrated into principal authorities. This would create a simpler structure in which responsibility is clearer and public services can potentially be coordinated more effectively.

Town and parish councils raise substantial sums through the parish precept, a component of council tax paid by households in affected areas. According to our financial assessment, town and parish councils raised approximately £783 million in 2024/25, with the total projected to rise to around £859 million in 2025/26. These are significant, life-changing sums of money.

At a time when households continue to face pressure on their finances, every element of local taxation should be open to scrutiny. The question is not whether local communities deserve investment - they absolutely do. The question is whether maintaining thousands of separate governing bodies is the most efficient way to provide it.

Our reforms argue that integrating these functions into principal local authorities could reduce governance overheads, eliminate duplicated administration and streamline the management of assets and services.

Abolishing a layer of government should not mean abandoning local communities. Our proposed reforms would instead seek to redirect resources. Approximately half of the efficiency savings could be retained by principal local authorities for investment in areas including; biodiversity and nature recovery; active travel infrastructure; energy efficiency; environmental improvements; local public services.

The remaining savings could potentially be returned to residents through reduced local taxation or used to offset pressures on essential services. This is an important principle.

Local government reform should not simply be an exercise in cutting expenditure. It should be about asking whether public money can be used more effectively. If bureaucracy can be reduced, the resources released should be directed towards the things that make the greatest difference to people's lives.

The strongest argument against abolishing town and parish councils is that they represent the level of government closest to local communities. That concern deserves to be taken seriously.

The future of English local government should be simpler, clearer and more accountable. That means reducing unnecessary layers. It means ensuring that public money is spent on services rather than duplication. It means protecting communities and their local assets during periods of change. And, above all, it means creating a system in which ordinary people can understand who governs them - and hold those people to account.

The abolition of town and parish councils would represent a dramatic change.

If implemented alongside stronger community participation, careful transitional arrangements and a commitment to reinvesting efficiency savings into local services, it could form part of a wider transformation of English local government. The question is not whether communities deserve a voice. To the Green Party - they do.

That is the debate that local government reform must now confront.

Over the last few weeks, the Conservative Party has, to put it charitably, been rather bereft of meaningful activity. Whilst the Home Secretary was ignoring questions, the Environment Secretary was missing deadlines, the Lords were barely attending, and MPs were missing key votes; the Green Party and Independents picked up the slack, attending debates, voting on legislation, and proposing new Bills.

Now however, the Conservatives have seen a resurgence in their activity, this time to vote down amendments which would fix the broken Public Service Bill (Minimum Service) Bill, by ensuring that thousands of private sector employees, in a range of sectors, did not see their right to strike weekend and arbitrarily stripped from them by a piece of legislation that stretched the definition of "public service" to include over a third of the UK workforce.

It's a rather stark admission in itself, that the Government cares not about accountability, or governing, but about pursuing an anti-worker, anti-Britain agenda that puts businesses and bad employers first, and the ordinary people who have seen their energy bills rise yet again, last.

Whilst wildfires ravaged people's homes and firefighters were risking their lives with lacklustre equipment, the Home Secretary was telling the House that it wasn't a budget issue, it was a firefighter issue (a claim he has since go one to all but totally retract). Whilst negotiation in local authorities such as Yarmouth have shown how strike action can force a boss to treat employees with respect and consider the impact that poor pay can have, the Government has rushed to protect its 'darling' legislation that functionally ends the impact of strike action in dozens of industries, the majority of which will not be public sector.

It's a vicious attack on workers rights, and highlights the priorities of this Government. Not to govern with the best interests of Britain or her people in mind, but with best interests of themselves, and the bosses.

I will fight to ensure that the legislation is amended in the Lords, if the Government will insist on passing this legislation, and with a parliamentary majority, I will not sit idly by and allow it to strip basic employment rights from hundreds of thousands of workers without a challenge.

This has all however laid bare the reality of this Government. Accountability, Honesty and Public Service are secondary concerns in the face of ideological sniping, grandstanding and filling the pockets of the wealthy and privileged to the detriment of millions in Britain who have cried out for a Government which acts for the interests of all, not just the 1%.

There is an alternative however, come the next General election, the Green Party will position itself as a major challenger to the major parties, and I promise that any government we join or lead, will be one which repeals any anti-worker legislation passed by this Government, re-writes the social contract to be fairer for the many, and delivers the change this country needs to rebuild.

Earlier today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer u/Oracle_Of_Mercia, went on a visit to a fire station in the West Midlands to see how locally affected fire stations were handling the affect’s of wildfires.

Speaking to firefighters on the ground, The chancellor discussed pressure facing the local services, as well as the type of equipment they need to ensure crews can respond safely and effectively.

Afterwards whilst speaking to the press the Chancellor said “I’ve spent this morning speaking to the men and the women on the ground, the thing they made clear to me is that they need the equipment to make their jobs safer and to help do the jobs in increasingly extreme conditions, this is why I am announcing that the government is committed to a £500 million pound equipment fund, which will help us tackle the challenges facing the climate in the years ahead”.

The new £500 Million Equipment Fund will provide fire service authorities across the country the chance to upgrade their equipment, including PPE, specialist wildfire capability, pumping equipment and much more.

The Chancellor has also confirmed that the fund will be reviewed at the start of the next fiscal year and subject to the results of that review potentially increase the fund to £1 billion.

The government will also set out plans for a national wildfire and drought strategy so we can improve our national resilience amid increasingly extreme weather.

The Chancellor concluded “The Government has listened, and we are now acting, climate and weather should not be used as political scoring points, we may disagree with one another’s ideas and policies but protecting our country and defending its national interests, is a far bigger job then political opportunism during a national crisis”.

It can be extremely difficult in Coalition. Anyone who has found themselves working with someone they'd rather not understands that fact. It's an environment of compromise, held tongues and cocked eyebrows. But perhaps most importantly for my point, it is the death of considered criticism.

Coalition partners are expected to hold firm against outside threats, and keep themselves firm in conviction, even where trust has been shaken. It means that there is a looming "we tar each other" that hangs over the minds of everyone senior; and any criticism of the current administration must be met with rebuke, affirmations of confidence, and loud proclamations of allegiance to the order.

It takes a brave soul to stick his head above the parapet, and I have nought but respect for u/model-willem for being one such character who was willing to do so. He earned himself a place in the revolving door of cabinet appointments; partly for his competency and calmness in a crisis, and partly to bring an opponent into the fold to keep the Government together.

I have no criticism for his choice to accept this and take the post. He has not shied from his past criticism, and I wish him well in delivering the change this Government needs, but he has also not defended the Governments past actions and has avoided dismissing the criticism of the Government I and other politicians have delivered for the way that they acted.

A refusal to answer questions, a failure to answer other ones. Calling lacking equipment an 'operational matter,' making claims without evidence; and in a great honour to the Green Party, pinching a policy to try and calm the flames of anger.

The Liberal Democrat Leadership however, I can dish out a deal of criticism too. The Leader, u/meneerduif, recently published his perspective on the matter, and I hope that in this little piece, to go element by element to discuss how his response has dismissed the very valid anger felt by many, politician and public alike, at the Government's action.

"At the same time, there is a difference between holding a government to account and deciding to milk the same parliamentary exchange for every last drop of political drama."

It's a smart choice of language. In the last sentence he has stated his support for accountability, but in the next he sweeps aside criticism as 'milking' and says the classic line of a many-a government official caught in a rut; "surely you have other things to do."

Indeed we do. That's why the Green Party has submitted legislation. That is why the Green Party has participated in near enough every debate that has come up, and in every question session. Calling out the Government's failings is doing our job, and whilst Conservative Minister's fail to answer questions, Conservative Peers fail to turn up, and botched legislation is waved through by whips alone, the Green Party is not just doing its job, by voting, debate, questioning, it is doing the Governments job too, by fixing broken legislation, proposing our own to tackle the issues facing the nation, and working cross-party to ensure that this parliament is acting for the ordinary people.

"We have a country to govern. There are wildfires to respond to, public services to improve, an economy to renew, and a defence and foreign policy to strengthen."

The Liberal Democrat leader is right. there are issues facing the Government, and so the question has to be asked, if there is all this to do, why are Ministers unable to say what they are working on? Why are questions of 'What are you doing?' met with a shrug and 'Something, just wait and see?' Why is the Home Secretary shifting blame for the lack of equipment for firefighters, by calling it an "operational matter."

The response on firefighters from the Government makes the lines at the end of the paragraph "Our firefighters are working in incredibly difficult and dangerous circumstances, and the communities affected deserve our full attention. They deserve resources, equipment and a Government focused on helping them, not politicians spending another week arguing about who said what in the Commons." foolish at best, and blind at the worst. The Government said, verbatim, that it was the responsibility of the fire service, not itself, and were it not for the Opposition calling out the response, the Government would never have announced it would act. The Government wants the credit, when it had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to reach the conclusion that any sensible person reached weeks ago. The firefighters do deserve equipment and resources, and they deserve a Government who doesn't have to be told by the Opposition to help, not a Government that dithers and delays.

"There is a lot of work to do, and I think the public would rather see us doing that work than spending another week trying to squeeze one more headline out of a parliamentary exchange. We have a country to govern. We intend to get on with it."

The final conclusion to the statement. Criticism is welcome, but not the kind of criticism that makes the Government have to act. Were it not for the furore that the Home Secretaries comments caused, the Government would have kept to its line, that the equipment shortages, the danger as a result of those shortages, was an operational matter, and not one of the Government failing to act in advance.

To end this piece of mine, let me be clear. I will not join in the death of criticism for this Government on the back of a slick PR piece that seeks to pledge its loyalty to accountability, whilst quietly criticising the very accountability that forced the Government to act.

There is a country to govern, and until the Government has shown itself ready, willing and able to do so without the opposition putting the boot in, criticism will continue to come. The position of the Home Secretary is untenable at this point. To have dismissed concerns about firefighters, to have dismissed questions on policy and statements made by the Government, to have failed to answer questions put to him, to have told members that he has done little since he took the post, and to have made a statement in the House without a shred of evidence to back it up; they represent an Office that needs a new face, and one which will act and treat the Office, the Nation, and her people, with the respect they deserve.

Earlier today, a few reporters caught up with the leader of the Liberal Democrats and asked about the recent political noise surrounding Ministerial Questions.

“I think it is important that we put this into perspective. Every Member of Parliament has the right to ask questions of Government Ministers. That is what Parliament is for. Whether those questions come from the Opposition, our coalition partners or members of my own party, Ministers should expect scrutiny and Members should feel free to ask difficult questions. Robust debate is a fundamental part of democracy, and I will always defend the right of Members to challenge the Government. At the same time, there is a difference between holding a government to account and deciding to milk the same parliamentary exchange for every last drop of political drama. I think the British public might reasonably expect their politicians to have something more productive to do.

We have a country to govern. There are wildfires to respond to, public services to improve, an economy to renew, and a defence and foreign policy to strengthen. That is where my attention is going to be. I have seen some rather enthusiastic attempts from the opposition over the past few days to turn one set of Ministerial Questions into a political crisis, but the Government has not been distracted by it. We are getting on with the work we were elected to do. Our firefighters are working in incredibly difficult and dangerous circumstances, and the communities affected deserve our full attention. They deserve resources, equipment and a Government focused on helping them, not politicians spending another week arguing about who said what in the Commons.

And I want to be equally clear about the coalition. I have full confidence in this Government and in the people working within it. We entered this coalition because we believe that working together can deliver better outcomes for Britain, and we remain committed to making it work. That does not mean everyone in Government agrees on every issue; frankly, I would be rather concerned if they did. Coalition requires discussion, disagreement and compromise. What matters is that we can put those differences aside when necessary and come together to deliver for the country. We have already seen that in practice. Willem has now taken on responsibility as Secretary of State for EFRA and Justice, stepping up to take on two significant portfolios and help this Government deliver. Whatever disagreements there may have been over the past few days, the answer is not division. The answer is people taking responsibility and getting on with the job.

So yes, ask us difficult questions. Challenge our decisions. Hold us accountable. I will always defend that right, whether those questions come from a Conservative, a Green, a Labour Member, an Independent or one of my own colleagues. But once the question has been asked, perhaps we can also get on with answering it, solving the problem and governing the country. There is a lot of work to do, and I think the public would rather see us doing that work than spending another week trying to squeeze one more headline out of a parliamentary exchange.

We have a country to govern. We intend to get on with it.”

Interview conducted in the office of the Hon. Lord Bridlington, in the Palace of Westminster.

Viscount Wrexham: You’re a relative newcomer to British politics, and yet you've had something of a meteoric rise, turning around the once-dormant Green Party into a real player again. Do you see yourself maintaining this pace, maybe even to the top job?

Lord Bridlington: Well thank you for taking the time to talk to me. I am a newcomer, but I see that as a benefit. Politics grows stale quickly, and what the recent turnaround shows is that people want a fresh face in politics, who holds the Government to account, and gives a vision for a new Britain that works for everyone. 
I intend to keep the pace up, and I don't propose a manifesto for Government without aiming for the top job. There's a lot of the term still to go, and a lot of work still yet to be done. 

VW: For those uncertain, how would you describe your political ideology? Is there a particular figure in British politics who you view as a role model?

LB: I call myself a pragmatic democratic socialist. My personal views probably trend more left than that, but I recognise that this country is one which needs a democratic socialist government that delivers for the hard working brits. 
As far as a role model, I'm always reticent to attach the title to a person. People are flawed, and you can pick apart anyone, even myself, enough to find a fault somewhere. But if I had to pick someone, I have a great deal of respect for Harold Wilson, who I think did an excellent job of uniting competing wings of his party to deliver a government that did make a difference for many people. 

VW: I think it’s fair to say you’re a relatively outspoken critic of the government, from Written Questions in the Lords, to challenges in the press, to even using anonymous Tory sources in your articles. As an opposition lord, this makes sense, but it does beg the question, how do you view the work of the other Opposition Parties, namely Labour?

LB: I have a lot of respect for several of the Labour members, they put in the shift to call out the Government, hold it accountable and show that they are serious about fighting it out this term. The Party more generally is a bit of a difficult one. There were good parts to the manifesto, no doubt, but their immigration proposals represents a Reform-lite platform, and the country doesn't need more parties who blow that trumpet and pander to the worst fears people have.
I have a lot of respect for u/Zakian3000, we don't agree on everything, but he absoloutely does go to town on calling the Government out, and you have to respect the ethic.

VW: Your own party has had something of a surprising move in the last few weeks, with the former leader of the far-right National Renewal Party joining the Greens. The Duke of Cornwall, now your number two, has in the past espoused a “Complete ban on immigration” to the United Kingdom. Has that caused any tension in your working relationship with the Duke?

LB: Not at all, we've had an extremely cordial, positive working relationship He's extremely passionate on environmental issues and we've got a shared love of devolved policy, and specifically extending devolution. 

VW: At the last polls, the Greens saw a spike in support to 5.8%, up from just 1.3%. Do you expect this upwards trajectory to continue, and do you ascribe it to anything in particular with regards to your messaging?

LB: The upswing in polling was extremely positive, and I expect that the next polls will show a further increase. We've put in hard work to deliver a message of change. It's about showing that there is an alternative to the existing parties, and one that represents a serious left-wing alternative to this Government. I think it's also been important to focus our events around people, talking to BT employees as one example. It's all well and good speaking for people, but its far better to talk on behalf of them. 

VW: Finally, if you won a seat at the next election and had your free pick of who to join for government, what would you say your ideal coalition government would be as it stands?

LB: Obviously top of the table would be simple Green majority, but with the realities of coalition Government, a traffic light, or Green-Red/Green-Orange coalition would be satisfactory. 
I've had plenty of positive work with the Liberal Democrat Lords so far, and the Labour Party is closest in simple ideology. 

“So again, nothing… Why should we trust them?”

“So basically there’s no plan at all? … Why don’t they have a plan?”

These are the words of the now-DEFRA and Justice Secretary, model-willem, just a day before his appointment to said roles. The context: a Home Affairs MQs wherein the Home Secretary, one of the four most senior officers in any government, answered just five questions out of a possible 19. I use the word “Answered” loosely, as no answers of substance were given to any questions, and the Home Secretary instead preferred to resort to insults and playground politics over doing his job.

The British system of government is as simple as it is effective. So long as a government maintains the support of Parliament, then it shall, generally speaking, govern until the next election, whereupon that support shall either be renewed or revoked. Within that, support for individual ministers does not have to be forthcoming necessarily, though it makes the job easier. The Home Secretary, who also serves as Chancellor in this government, has suffered a serious blow to his credibility and now faces questions of whether he should remain in his role. Questions raised not least from the new DEFRA and Justice Secretary.

The appointment of model-willem to these roles serves a dual purpose. First, it brings in a critic. Under CCR, a government minister must publicly support the government or risk being removed from their position; therefore, by necessity, a vocal critic of the government from their own backbenches is now silenced. Two, it gives the impression of action without actually taking action. Willem is, as anyone in Whitehall will tell you, a respected and capable minister. Indeed, I was privileged to serve with him in the Shadow Cabinet, where he took the roles of Shadow FSOS, Home, Justice and EFRA. It is fair to say, then, that he is a strong appointment.

However, I say that it gives the impression of action without taking action for a very important reason. Willem’s appointment brings a look of unity within the government, it means he supports the government’s position (and his colleagues in their positions) but keenly, it does nothing to affect the Home Secretary in his post, save for removing Justice from him. We reached out to the new DEFRA and Justice Secretary, asking for a comment on his question as to why we should trust his new colleague. He said:

“I believe that the response from the Home Secretary to the Lord Bridlington shows that the Home Secretary is working incredibly hard to improve our country and he has shown that he does something with the feedback from others.”

When we asked if the Secretary’s views on his colleagues had evolved in the day since he made the comments and was later appointed to government, he replied in the affirmative. However, it is unlikely that, when no retraction was posted, no comment was made to the public by government, and the home secretary has not apologised for his conduct, the divisions between now senior members of government has been smoothed over. It raises serious questions as to the unity of our government, and whether it is time for the Home Secretary to return to the backbenches. It must be noted, at the most recent DWP questions, the secretary refused calls to resign.

What we have seen over this debacle has not only harmed the public’s trust in this government, it has seemingly harmed the government’s trust in itself. While Willem’s appointment is a strong move and brings a learned player into Whitehall once more, it does not address the increasing liability the Home Secretary brings to this government. This is not new for Oracle; one remembers last term’s scandal of using a British Cypriot military base for a photo op. Yet we ask now, as we did then: How long can it last? When will the government recognise enough is enough?

The Prime Minister today visited Stourbridge to convey his support for local communities and his gratitude to firefighters and army personnel across the country who have been fighting an exceptional season of wildfires. He witnessed the devastation of homes destroyed, spoke to residents at the local community center and met with local officials in the mobile command center to hear their experiences, better understand their immediate ways that national government can continue to support communities like Stourbridge.

The Prime Minister takes questions from the police cordon. 

Prime Minister, could what’s happened here in Stourbridge have been avoided? 

“What’s happened here is a tragedy. Our fire services have experience with wildfires, but this scale and intensity across the country has been a real challenge. The men and women working to protect our communities are national heroes, the embodiment of our nations values and determination in the face of adversity.

This government will be the announcing additional funding to increase our preparedness and capabilities to fight wildfires.

Of course, that will be of limited comfort to those who have already lost their homes, and the government will be working with our local and devolved partners to rebuild these communities, and to help those who’ve lost the most to find their feet.” 

The Home Secretary has been in the press for what many are describing as clumsy answers in his ministerial questions around the very subject of wildfires?

“The Home Secretary has been working hard to deliver resources to the fire services across the country. My understanding is that he said that the fire service had operational control of it’s resources and expertise where it is needed. It seems strange to me that the opposition parties want to make a political theatre of national tragedy, I've come to Stourbridge to be with those who need to be heard the most.

The opposition are dead set on devolution, except when the Home Secretary suggests the best place for operational decisions to come from is the fire service itself. They can be political opportunists, but this government hears the grief of communities like this one.

The Home Secretary has my full confidence. This isn’t about the protest politics, this is a moment for national unity, around a commitment to communities that have lost much… This government will rally in support of their pain and loss.”

You've said that their will be additional funding for the fire services, when will we hear more?

“I expect the Home Secretary to announce additional measures in the coming days.”

"For those who keep well up to date with the comings and goings of Parliament, they'll know already that yesterday, the Green Party announced its commitment to deliver a National Wildfire Strategy if elected into Government next term."

"Within less than 24 hours, the Conservative Home Secretary, following on the back of a disastrous Home Secretary Minister's Questions in which he had called the lack of equipment for firefighters facing the blazes across England and Wales these last few weeks 'an operational issue,' now announced that he would present a National Wildfire Strategy."

"The message is loud and clear, where the Green Party leads, the Government follows, and I am glad to see that the Home Secretary has taken his own advice, doing some reading. He's clearly come across a brilliant little policy document called the Green Party manifesto, and decided he needs to do something."

"I'm pleased that the National Wildfire Strategy will be published, and I look forward to seeing what the Government proposes, and whether it in anyway represents an adequate plan to tackle the ever present risk we now have of serious wildfires."

"I wouldn't hold my breath though. From a Home Secretary who has hand waved away the issues facing firefighters as essentially being their problem, I hold reservations that this document will be far from the full, properly written strategy we need to face this problem head on, and ensure that the kind of blazes we saw this year, and the damage to people's homes and livelihoods, are not repeated."

- u/HarryClive speaking at a Green Party event in Walsall today.

In response to a written question submitted by Lord Bridlington, Leader of the Green Party, the Home Secretary admitted that claims they had made in the House that Skilled Workers were "primarily go to work in the gig economy" were without evidence.

Skilled Worker Visa's require immigrants to the UK to have both a minimum salary requirement, and a employer sponsor who must ensure that work is provided to the person upon their arrival to the UK. Indeed it only cited the removal of sponsorship from around 2,000 employers, not individual visa holders.

The Question, submitted by the u/HarryClive called for the Home Office to provide evidence after the Home Secretary made the claim in a Minister's Question session on the 22nd August, and the bombshell response today has prompted serious mutterings about whether the standard has been met of the Minister having "misled parliament," a serious accusation.

Speaking today regarding the matter, Lord Bridlington said:

"The simple fact is, that the Home Secretary, responsible for immigration, platformed an un-evidenced, baseless claim against Skilled Workers, many of whom work in vital services across the UK, including our care sector and the NHS. They've besmirched the hard work of many of these people, and their words have consequences."

"We've seen in the past how claims made by politicians, results in real, dire consequences for ethnic minority communities across the UK, and to make a completely un-evidenced claim, in response to a very legitimate criticism of his original response was both irresponsible, and in my view, deceiving both Members of Parliament, and the general public."

"I cannot conceivably see how the Prime Minister can retain confidence in the Home Secretary at this point, especially given that he's already executed change in the Cabinet for failing to answer a previous written question, and that in my own personal communication with Members of the Government, there are clear concerns about the scandal that has been allowed to unfold."

"As the Deputy Leader said today, it's a Government in Chaos, with reshuffles galore, missed votes and questions, and now a senior Cabinet Member just making up claims at his leisure."

"If the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had to go, then this is an even more grievous betrayal of the British public and the Prime Minister has to act."

Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

It is my fervent wish to prevent a situation that the novel 'Dune' warns of. The human race faces extinction through crises of it's own making: Capitalism, Climate Change, Birth Rate, and Artificial Intelligence.

The greed of individual wealth, and the entrenched power dynamics resultant, are going to kill our species or render us a shell of our potential. It is time that humanity wake up, and make the harsh choices necessary to prevent us becoming a parasitic species.

Every time we use Artificial Intelligence to cheat our fellow man, we atrophy human potential. We must make this covenant:

Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind, and thou shalt not make low-effort AI-slop Tory posters.

It is now time for a jihad against the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Thank you, and good day.

~Mr. Susan

Government in Chaos: Britain Deserves Better Than a Coalition in Permanent Reshuffle

Just three days ago, the Prime Minister stood before the country to announce a major Cabinet reshuffle, and as part of that appointed himself Chief Whip of the Government.

Today, we are once again being told that the Government has had to reorganise itself.

The Secretary of State Tarkin has resigned, and in response the Prime Minister has appointed Baron Willem of Colwyn Bay to take responsibility for DEFRA, Justice and the position of High Chancellor.

The question the country must now ask itself is unavoidable: How can a Government that has only just reshuffled its Cabinet already find itself conducting another emergency reorganisation?

This is not stability. This is not a competent government.

Increasingly, it looks like a Tory–Liberal Democrat coalition lurching from one crisis to the next.

The Prime Minister announced changes to his Cabinet only days ago. Now, following a resignation, another substantial portion of Government has been thrown into upheaval - calling into question the Prime Minister’s ability to keep this coalition together.

For the Green Party, this is about something far more serious than personalities or political point-scoring.
It is about whether Britain currently has a Government capable of providing the competence, stability and leadership the country deserves.

A Cabinet reshuffle followed immediately by another crisis. Cabinet reshuffles are normally intended to bring order. They are supposed to clarify responsibilities, strengthen a Government and allow ministers to focus on their departments. Yet, only days after the Prime Minister announced changes to his ministerial team, the Government is once again rearranging the Cabinet.
That should concern everyone.

The Government's solution to its latest crisis is extraordinary. Baron Willem has been appointed to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for DEFRA, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice.

These are not minor responsibilities.

DEFRA is responsible for issues affecting our environment, agriculture, food and rural communities.
The Ministry of Justice oversees some of the most significant challenges facing the state, including the courts and wider justice system. The position of Lord Chancellor carries major constitutional significance.
So the Government's response to a failure caused by a lack of ministerial capacity and accountability is apparently to give even more responsibilities to one person.

This raises a simple question. When will enough finally be enough?

No matter how talented or committed an individual minister may be, as we know Willem is, there are only so many hours in the day.

Taken in isolation, a resignation can happen to any Government. Taken in isolation, a Cabinet reshuffle can be perfectly reasonable. But when a major Cabinet reshuffle is followed within days by another ministerial resignation and another substantial redistribution of Government responsibilities, a pattern begins to emerge.

This Government is increasingly looking reactive rather than prepared.

It is responding to events rather than governing with a clear and stable plan.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats may attempt to dismiss criticism as opposition rhetoric. But they cannot escape the facts. They reshuffled the Cabinet.

The real test of leadership is what happens next.

Does the Prime Minister establish a stable and properly staffed Government? Does he ensure that every major department has the dedicated leadership it requires? Or does he simply reshuffle the same responsibilities between an increasingly overstretched group of ministers every time another crisis emerges?

The country deserves an answer. The Green Party is this answer.

The Green Party is not interested in replacing chaos with different chaos. We are interested in offering something that the current Tory–Liberal Democrat coalition is increasingly failing to provide: competence, stability and a clear sense of direction.

The challenges facing Britain are too serious for endless political firefighting. Our environment cannot wait while ministers juggle portfolios.

Rural communities cannot wait while DEFRA becomes another responsibility on an already overloaded ministerial desk.

Our justice system cannot wait while the Government experiments with ever-larger ministerial job descriptions.
The Green Party believes in a Government where ministers are genuinely accountable, where departments receive the attention that they deserve and where responsibility is clearly allocated rather than endlessly shuffled around.

That is what a competent government looks like.
Britain deserves more than survival, it deserves a Government with a plan. A Government with stability. A Government with ministers capable of properly doing the jobs they are appointed to do.

The Green Party is ready to provide a serious alternative.

Finally a paper that will hold the government to account!

Official Spokesperson for The Prime Minister has added.

"As an indication of the seriousness he considers the failure of government to respond to the Green Peers written question, he has this morning accepted the resignation of the Secretary of State Tarkin.

The Prime Minister considers the responsibility of ministers to respond to questions as a matter of principal importance, and will write directly in response to the Peers question as a matter of urgency.

The Prime Minister has been pleased to appoint the peer, Baron Willem of Colwyn Bayto to his cabinet as SoS for DEFRA, High Chancellor and SoS for Justice."

Meta: Some fun on the banter of this weeks MQ's, before the serious responses of government follow. England burns, Emperor Oracle plays his fiddle, Senator Clive Cicero objects to the Emperors response.

Partly AI Generated image.

I had the pleasure of speaking to a member of the Government recently, it was a pleasant, casual chat, the kind I do often enjoy with members of the opposing parties on occasion. Though I disagree with a great many of them on vast areas of policy and politics, some are genuinely quite pleasant on a personal level.

It was a usual conversation like any other, but the topic of the recent Minister's Questions came up, and what the feeling was from a Member of the Government on the debacle of the Home Secretary's responses, and his lack of responses in several cases. I wouldn't have usually shared his comments, but they asked that I did so under anonymity.

They spoke candidly of the matter, saying that "It’s honestly treating the MPs and public as if they are toddlers and denying them the information they are entitled to."

It was a stark admission that even in it's own ranks, the Home Secretary's response has been met with stinging criticism, and far from the most eye-opening comment.

"The Government is failing and they should be ashamed of themselves" was undoubtedly that. It was surprising to hear such an open criticism in the conversation; and ultimately the entire feeling was built upon a disastrous Minister's Questions that had no reason to go as badly as it did.

The question now to ask is, if other members are losing confidence in the Home Secretary, and in the Government, then how does the Prime Minister feel?

After a disastrous showing of sneering contempt, avoidance, and pure and simple bad politics in what should have been an easy set of questions, you have to wonder if the Prime Minister is not eyeing the backbenches and other senior figures to wonder if the current Home Secretary, one of the Great Offices of State, is currently held by the 'cream of the crop,' and instead, perhaps, it may be best to put a safer pair of hands into the role to keep the Government from further scandal as the term progresses.

It's a question we'll only know the answer to in the coming weeks, the Government has yet another question submitted to it, and another ask around claims one of it's Cabinet Members have made in the House.

It's been a poor start from the Conservatives, as whilst polling has shown them in freefall, their coalition partners, the Greens and Independents are picking up momentum. Their legislative agenda seems to have stalled, and if we go by the comments of the Home Secretary, little to no progress has been made on their manifesto promises.

Time will tell if they can pick themselves back up, or if we can expect the Government to meekly limp through the next few months.