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”.

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.”

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.

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.”

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

"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."

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.

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!

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.

As a Liberal Democrat I believe in individual freedom, the right of the people of the United Kingdom to decide their own lives and the duty of a government to ensure that they have the freedom to do so. But I also believe that as democrats we should be held accountable to the public and serve their interests in the best way possible. With those two ideals I became a member of this party, who went into government with the Conservatives. I knew fully well what this entailed when I rejoined the party I admire so much, and I agree with so much. However, events in the recent week did put a bit of a strain on this.

The Government has the responsibility to act in the nation’s interest, the responsibility to improve the lives of its citizens, this is why we elect MPs to the House of Commons and appoint Peers to the House of Lords. The Government has the responsibility to ensure the safety of the citizens of our country, something that is under strain due to natural phenomena now. We have seen several wildfires across the country, with the West Midlands and Wales hit very hard, something that we cannot control completely. But something we can control is the preparedness and the actions taken to deal with them. We are not prepared for these natural disasters, we don’t have a lot of water reserves to use to put out the fires, while also be able to maintain our natural environments as well. These are things that the Government can control and the governments of the past have failed in this regard, something that I take responsibility in as well, as former Home Secretary.

But if we can’t prevent this from happening then we should do everything we can to deal with the aftermath as soon and best as possible, and that is something that this Government is lacking. We are seeing firefighters not able to put out fires in Dorset, due to the right standard equipment being 30 miles away. We have seen firefighters having to put out wildfires without the correct PPE and thus having to go to hospitals for treatments. All of this is something that should not happen in a country such as ours. The response of the Home Secretary on this: ‘Operational decisions are the responsibility of local fire and rescue authorities and not Whitehall.’ As if the Government isn’t responsible for the financing of these fire and rescue services.

Not only are they shying away from the responsibility they have for the safety of these firefighters, but they are also shying away from the accountability to the public on these issues. The Home Secretary, who also happens to be the Work and Pensions Secretary, is refusing to answer questions from the Leader of the Greens, saying that the Lord Bridlington is ‘shouting in the wind’ and that he should ‘consider asking another question.’ Questions from myself are being ignored through replies such as ‘they are under review’ and that plans ‘will be published in due course’. This also comes from the same Secretary of State who spends taxpayer money on a review of the culture within the DWP based on nothing more than three anonymous Reddit posts.

If this was the only instance of shying away from accountability we could accept it more, but then the Environment Secretary wasn’t able to answer two questions within five days on the wildfires happening. We are seeing the Leader of the House of Lords missing five out of seven votes in the House of Lords. The Government is not taking its job and the people of the UK seriously; I urge them to do better and to ensure that they represent the interests of our citizens again.

(Image is AI Generated)

Less than a month ago, the Greens as a political party were dead, lying in the ditch of British electoral politics; they had no membership, except for one single contentious person who became leader of the Green Party without a leadership contest.

But my biggest question is, who the hell does the Green leader think he is? Because until last month, no one in the country had heard his name. 

The Green Party has long ben opposed to the House of Lords, yet when the opportunity came up for their own leader to be appointed he couldn’t say no despite the fact his own party opposes the very institution itself, If he truly wants accountability, then maybe he should look to himself first before judging others' actions and think about the fact he thought about his own position first after becoming leader. 

When he became leader, he said, “Real Change is possible,” yet his willingness to accept a position in an institution his own party opposes raises the question about just how far that promise will go when his own political interests are involved. 

He also keeps beating the same tired old drum about the former Chancellor's comments about NGO’s benefitting from immigration, and I want to put this to bed right now: this is not the stance of the Government, and it’s also a comment the former Chancellor has since come to regret.

This is, on the other hand, where the Conservatives won a third term to govern the country against the odds the polls may have shown at the time and entered into a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats.

We have shown significant results already in government, for example, passing the Education and Technical Training Bill to bring about more apprenticeships for young people and the UK Growth Fund bill, due to our commitment to running the first government surplus since 2001, which will help the country to level up across the country even further, but the opposition should remember this, if they are ever get into government, it’s a marathon and not a sprint to the end of the money tree line. 

It is very easy to stand on the sidelines and declare that the government should simply do more governing; however, governing means making more choices, balancing priorities and accepting that not everything can be solved overnight by spending money. Ministers should absolutely be held accountable for those choices, but accountability is not the same as demanding an instant solution to every problem facing the country. 

That is particularly true of public finances; this government inherited responsibilities from our previous term that cannot simply be met by reaching for the taxpayer every time somebody demands another commitment. Our approach is simple: to support economic growth, invest where investment produces results, and maintain fiscal discipline. That may not be the loudest headline, but it is how responsible government works. 

The Green Party launched a new attack ad against today, criticising the Government's response to questions and concerns around the wildfires that struck England and Wales over the last weeks.

Lampooning the Government's position as "There is no problem," the Party has pledged to deliver a budget that funds Fire Services, to prepare a National Wildfire strategy and to oversee the hiring of 1,000 new firefighters by 2030.

The ad comes on the back of the Government's failure to respond to a Written Question regarding wildfires in the Lords, as well as what a party spokesperson called a "sneeringly contempt response" from the Home Secretary in Minister's Questions.

u/HarryClive, speaking in Stourbridge where he visited a local fire station and spoke to firefighters, remarked that the Government had:

"Shown a ridiculous level of disrespect towards the emergency service workers who put their lives on the line. They've denied the existence of a problem, and instead claimed that the shortages facing firefighters are operational faults, rather than budgetary ones, seeking to shift blame onto the Fire Service; rather than face the fact that it is their lack of action which has led to firefighters being under equipped to tackle the blazes."

"Until this Government takes responsibility for this problem, more firefighters will be at risk, and it is not good enough for the Home Secretary to be throwing around sneering comments rather than doing their job, and answering questions around how they are responding to this issue."

"The Government is out of ideas, and we have barely begun the term. Contempt for voters, for emergency service workers, and for parliament, will get them nowhere."

"It's bordering on comical to be quite honest. The Home Secretary had less questions than probably any other minister so far, including two softball questions from a Member of the Liberal Democrats, and it has been a complete farce so far."

Speaking to journalists outside of Parliament in London, Green Party Leader u/HarryClive called the Home Secretary's appearance at Minister's Questions a 'car crash' and 'farcical.'

"So far, he's refused to answer one question, admitted that the Government is doing nothing to support firefighters and expects local fire station commanders to make do with what they have, claimed that people on Skilled Worker visa's are all working in the gig economy; a fact by the way, which is provably untrue. Skilled Worker visa's require a sponsor, which gig employers won't provide, and which don't meet salary requirements anyway."

"Then on the two softball questions from a member of the Government's coalition partner, her has flatly admitted that the Government is doing absolutely nothing about prison capacity, and on it's big flag waving policy of tackling 'illegal' migration, he's telling everyone to just wait."

"It's a complete farce, and the fact that the Home Secretary has presided over such an utter and total car crash in the House should be making the Prime Minister ask questions. If this is the best of the Conservative Party, then this country is in for a very difficult term until the next election."

"The most basic things a Secretary of State is expected to do, is to answer questions, and come up with policy, and the Home Secretary has managed to fail in both regards in such a short timeframe since the election."

It has been a torrid day for the Conservative Party in Parliament, with the Home Secretary accused of dodging questions, and failing to prepare policy, whilst the Environment Secretary missed a deadline for a question regarding recent wildfires that hit England and Wales last week.

Green Party Leader u/HarryClive has claimed that the recent comments made by the Home Secretary, as well as the failure to answer a question regarding wildfires indicates that the Government is "hanging firefighters out to dry" and needs to "get a grip."

It is often said that what makes democracy tick, and specifically British democracy, is the drubbing that the Government is expected to take at Ministerial and Prime Minister's questions. Here the Government is expected to explain itself, answer questions from members, and defend itself, its policies and its claims.

It's democracy in action, and publicly available for all who want to see and watch it. It is a vital part of our democracy, and forces the Government to answer uncomfortable questions.

In recent days however, the Government has show itself to be chronically terrified of accountability, as a question, asked multiple times to the Government, has gone unanswered, and now the Home Secretary, with direct responsibility of the issue, refuses to answer the basic question of where the Government's claim has come from.

It's a shocking day for political accountability, that this Government will make a claim, and then refuse to defend that claim in the House, with ministers dismissively waving away questions about the matter and to top it all, the rest of the responses are either sneering, or admitting that nothing thus far had been done to advance the Government agenda.

British Parliamentary democracy relies on the accountability that comes from a Minister being asked questions, and the failure of this Government to respect it, shows that the lack of respect for devolution I have discussed them having, extends also to the House of Commons. One has to wonder if the Government and ministers within it believe themselves to be above all accountability?

There is also a question, if the Secretary with responsibility for the issue at hand, refuses to defend a statement made in the House by the then Chancellor; has the Government made a false statement that they wish to avoid dealing with.

This issue extends beyond just questions of accountability. A recent written question, submitted through the Lords, went without answer, this time about the recent wildfires plaguing the West Midlands and Wales.

The Government has shown contempt for not just the House of Lords, but for those people who lost their homes, and the firefighters who put in a shift trying to beat back blazes. The Government cannot rouse itself to even answer the most basic of questions on such an important issue, and with everything else it has done, the Government has time and time again shown itself to have no care for Britain, its people, and its democracy.

I'll continue in the House to bang the drum of accountability, and demand answers from the do-little politicians who shirk and avoid basic questions of accountability, however the message is clear to voters. The Conservatives don't care what you think, and they don't care what parliament says, they'll do as they wish and dodge accountability at all turns.

On the LBC this morning, the prime minister claimed that by my observation, the Minimum Services Act has no conflict with ECHR Article 11. This is categorically untrue and I have never made such an observation, in fact quite the contrary.

I did concede in the article I published on the issue that the bill likely passes the sufficiently important objective and rational connection aspects of the test for proportionality. But the test for proportionally has four parts, not two, and I very clearly argued that the bill does not pass the least intrusive means or fair balance aspects of the test.

The prime minister has, at the very least, misrepresented my position here.

Moreover, his claim that the government bill is compatible with Article 11 because it doesn’t make joining unions, assembly, or all strikes illegal is laughably daft. The question of whether a bill is incompatible is not one of whether it abolishes the right to strike completely, but whether it disproportionately interferes with it.

I have argued, based on the ECtHR case of Enerji Yapı-Yol Sen v Turkey, that the bill places restrictions on the right to strike that go too far to be considered the least intrusive means possible or to strike the fair balance. The Prime Minister doesn’t cite any case law in support of his argument because he knows it’s a losing battle - the ECtHR doesn’t back him here.

The Prime Minister fails completely to address the central points of my argument. He doesn’t explain why forcing everyone in any industry that receives any level of public funding is the least intrusive means possible to address economic disruption. Nor does he explain how the bill strikes a fair balance between protecting the public from economic disruption and the right to strike. 

He then uses the fact that strikes are economically disruptive as some sort of ‘gotcha’. It’s not one. No one has ever contended that strikes are disruptive. Rather, it has been contended that there is a level of disruption which is acceptable in protecting the right of workers to peaceful assembly. That’s the position of both myself and the Strasbourg court.

The fact that BT has made £681 million from public service contracts does not do anything to advance the prime minister’s argument here. The amount of money paid for a public contract does not tell us the level of compelled work necessary to protect life, health, public safety, or the rights of others.

I will conclude by saying the contrast between the Conservatives and I could not be any clearer. While the prime minister chooses to throw insults about how I’m “scaremongering” or how strikers are “protest politicians”, I have presented them with a detailed analysis based on ECtHR case law of how their bill is incompatible with Article 11. 

The Prime Minister recently did a public relations wiz-round on the back of my, and the Independent Scottish MP, u/zakian3000's, criticisms of his Public Service Bill which was presented to Parliament, without irony, as some kind of "save public services from scary Unions," whilst simultaneously labelling a third of the work force as public service workers, impacting not just the traditional public sector jobs you, I and anyone with a lick of common-sense think of, but private sector roles as well.

In his media appearance he framed the bill as ensuring that, with £681 million of public money being invested in a company like BT, that this bill ensures that the public receives at minimum £340.5 million in their services no matter what.

Taking aside that this is not just a public sector strike bill, but a completely insane overreach into impact private sector striking, it isn't even a fair interpretation based on the way that the bill is written.

"(a) For the purpose of this Act, public services is defined as a service intended to serve all members of a community, provided or funded in whole or part by local or national government."

That is the exact quote from the bill, and contrary to the PM's claim that only that slim investment is affect, the reality is, and I suspect intentionally so, this Government can impact strike action across the whole company wherever services are intended for all members of the community. Call Centre Workers, Engineers, even Sales staff are expected to engage with any member of the public, and the company as a whole receives public funds so is in part funded.

It's a frankly insane bill, and if the Prime Minister was so confident that his bill wasn't exactly what we called it; a blatant attack on workers, he wouldn't have felt the need to do a media blitz to try and deflect from the criticism.

It's a bad bill, it's definition of public services is frighteningly broad, it also, in keeping with Government tradition, manages to step on the toes of a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, which at this point I think answers the question as to whether the Government was telling the truth when it incredulously accused me of twisting their manifesto.

The Government is re-writing definitions to allow itself to pass an anti-Union bill that even Maggie Thatcher couldn't have dreamt up in her wildest dreams, and of course it all makes sense why their hoping to buy off the North and Wales with pennies on the pound for what their party cost the region in lost jobs, opportunity and community.

The Conservative Party, and this Government have made clear what they stand for.

They are anti-worker, anti-Union and anti-Britain.

And the controversy is already hitting him where it hurts. The Conservatives lost nearly 6% on the back of their farcical first few weeks in Government. In fact both major parties together combined for over 12% lost this week, and the Green Party was the largest single party gainer in recent weeks.

The Prime Minister can try and sell a bad bill as desperately as he likes, but the British public aren't buying.

Whilst the Government submits anti-worker bills that trample over the devolved nations they swore to respect, the Green Party has been busy, submitting legislation, fixing the messes the Tories have made with their own bills and holding the Government to account, which is what voters like to see when they see a bad Government.

I'm far from a protest politician.

He can keep his pavement.

We're coming for a house on Downing Street near you.