As reported by the Times yesterday, British politics erupted in chaos as three opposition parties - Labour, the Libertarian Party and the Democratic Reformist Front - announced in unison that they were to table a motion of no confidence in the Government.

Today, that motion was read and debated in the House.

Three MPs moved the motion, and between them they had three primary points of consternation:

1. The absence of senior Government figures from scheduled House debates

2. Allegations that the Government’s Queen’s Speech last month was misleading on legal aid

3. Serious allegations that the Foreign Secretary misled the House on the Iranian nuclear programme

The three movers agreed with these points to a greater or lesser degree, but all of them had one thing in common; the accusation that the Government misled Parliament on Iran. The questions now, therefore, must be: to what extent are these allegations true? And what else could have motivated these parties into attempting to remove the Government?

The Times investigated the claims, and those making them, and this is the outcome of our investigation.

A succinct statement of the Iranian problem was made by /u/Friedmanite19 during today’s debate:

More recently we’ve had the government wait a mere 14 days before the deadline to deal with the pivotal issue of Iran, what on earth have they been doing? The government is a laughing stock with the education Secretary defending this catastrophic inaction as the government is not rushing into things. A common theme across this government is misleading the house which the Foreign Secretary has done, not once but twice. He told us talks began yesterday and 73 days a go at the same time contradicting himself in the same session. In his first MQ’s he told the house talks with Iran had started only for us to hear from the Iranians that talks had indeed not started, it is rather telling that Iran is a more reliable source than government figures.

The catalyst behind these allegations was a tweet sent by the BBC on 28 March. This said the BBC had received a letter from the Iranian Foreign Minister “expressing disappointment” that no talks had occurred, and that Iran was keen to “accelerate talks”. The Times was unable to procure a copy of this letter, so we spoke to the BBC, who told us:

The BBC understands that this is the same letter sent to the UK Government. While we endeavour to provide the top unbiased and neutral news service, it is impossible for us to verify whether claims made in the letter are true. We can only report that the letter was sent by Iran.

When we questioned the Foreign Secretary, /u/model-willem, about this tweet, he said, “We reached out but the Iranians ignored our requests.” We pressed him on whether he thought the Iranian Foreign Minister was lying. He told us, “The Iranian Government’s comments of no action being taken in a while are true,” before reiterating, “But not that the UK hasn’t reached out at all.”

This refers to a particular problem with the timeline of events. As /u/Friedmanite19 stated in his speech earlier today, /u/model-willem has indeed given contradictory answers on the status of the Iran talks. One answer suggested talks began in January, and one suggested they in fact began last week, as, again, was reported by the BBC. This is backed up by one of /u/model-willem’s comments to the House during an urgent questions session on this subject, where he said:

The talks with the Iranian Government have been fruitful and we’re done under great circumstances. We’ve done great work as Government to ensure a good strategy and good talks with the Iranians and I look very much forward to having further discussion with them as Foreign Secretary later this week.

As it turns out, the “further discussion” did happen. However, can we say that “talks… have been fruitful”? Or, indeed, that there were any talks at all? /u/model-willem attempted to clarify his comments later in the same debate:

I claimed in January that talks were ongoing, but I can remind the Rt Hon Member that there was a General Election so we had to stop the negotiations and then decide on a new strategy before talks could continue.

The interference of a general election explains the gap between “talks”, but what evidence is there that in January talks had begun? The Times has seen correspondence that shows that the Government - specifically /u/model-willem’s predecessor in the Foreign Office - did indeed attempt to contact the Iranian Government in January and received no concrete response. Whether or not this constitutes the beginning of “talks” is a political question we cannot answer here; but on the use of the adjective “fruitful” we can possibly be more definitive.

As to whether this can be read as misleading the House is also unclear. We can show here that the Foreign Office at least attempted to open a channel with the Iranian foreign ministry before the general election, but neither we, nor /u/model-willem, can show any productivity thereof, and to say “talks with the Iranian Government have been fruitful” is at best hyperbolic. However, despite the apparent contradiction the fundamentals appear to be true, albeit /u/model-willem himself, in his statements to the House and to us, was unspecific. Attempts at talks did indeed occur “73 days ago”, while bona fide diplomacy actually began in the last week.

As for the other bases of the motion of no confidence, we can make no useful investigation into the Government’s presence at Parliamentary debates. These have always been a point of consternation in almost every Parliamentary session we’ve had the pleasure to cover. We can however confirm that the Government’s statement in the Queen’s Speech that the last budget - which at the time was the /u/Friedmanite19-authored budget - cut legal aid was incorrect, and this foundation of the motion of no confidence does indeed hold up. When The Times contacted /u/thechattyshow, the Liberal Democrat leader, about this, he told us, “Fried's budget was never enacted, thanks to the work of the coalition in securing a better economic outlook for this country.” It was at this point he added, “I'm not going to take lectures on political point scoring from the Leader of the Libertarians, who puts personal anger with the tories over the national interest.”

The Times put this to /u/Friedmanite19. “This has nothing to do with personal feuds, this is do with the government avoiding scrutiny and misleading parliament,” he told us. /u/Friedmanite19 is of course known for his controversial and confrontational approach to debate, but nevertheless he wouldn’t be drawn on the extent to which his moving the motion of no confidence was “personal”. “This is not about me or the LPUK, this is about the government and being pro-politics.” It is, however, difficult to see precisely what LPUK would gain from such a motion of no confidence, assuming one does not believe their actions are purely in the national interest. We leave this to our readers to decide, but on whether or not the LPUK considered the ramifications of their actions should the motion pass, he said, “I am not voting on any future government. I am voting on a motion which asks whether the house has confidence in the government. I can't defend a government that lies to parliament and avoids scrutiny. This is above ideology, this is about not making a mockery of our democracy and upholding our institutions.”

What about the other major party to the motion? Labour have rocketed up in polling recently and are within touching distance of achieving what they’ve never achieved before and leading the Tories in national polling. Could there be something else at play here? Model Times has seen WhatsApp exchanges between /u/ARichTeaBiscuit and senior Liberal Democrats where the Labour leader is keen to suggest a future working relationship between both parties. The date on these messages may also be important; the first overtures were made on 6 April, while a second attempt was made only yesterday (8 April). When asked about this coincidence, /u/ARichTeaBiscuit said, “[This] has absolutely nothing to do with this VONC.” When pressed, she added, “While Labour would be happy to work with the Liberal Democrats it did not impact our decision [to support the motion] at all.”

This motion of no confidence presents us with a unique series of issues. It is somewhat unlike others in the past, where a single, large and demonstrable problem has befouled the Government’s reputation. Instead we have these three separate allegations. One we are able to confirm is true: legal aid was indeed increased not cut under the “previous budget”. One we are unable to verify one way or the other, as Government engagement with Parliament is a perennial and, dare we say, essentially contested dilemma. The final one is much bigger and much trickier. Whether or not /u/model-willem misled the House, and whether or not the Government has been delinquent in its foreign policy, is unclear. Can we prove the Foreign Secretary engaged in politicking and exaggeration? Yes. Can we prove the Foreign Secretary lied to the House to cover up the Government’s laziness? On this serious allegation, we cannot find cast iron evidence, as everything seems to rest on the definition of the word “talks”, and it is on that point MPs shall be voting in a couple of days’ time.