General British politics discussion thread

Tom Mann Centuria

https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1777305911817576807?t=LHLvsY_tZqqy23nhOnO7ow&s=19

This is a good poll for Labour, some (myself included) have hypothesised their vote might suffer with how they've dealt with Gaza, and it has gone down a bit, but it's still formidable percentage that will vote Labour. I think credible independent candidates put up against them might give them a bloody nose or two, but that might be wishful thinking on my part. Even If it was just Streeting, that'll do, I'm not greedy.

Timberrrrrrrr

The real reason Sunak hasn't removed the whip from Wragg?

"If they remove the whip, he'll have to face the Standards Committee, and then all the dirt and names will come out."

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/tories-havent-removed-the-whip-of-sexting-mp-for-one-depressing-reason-372090/

Timberrrrrrrr

Wragg voluntarily resigns the Conservative whip avoiding a standards committee investigation, I guess Sunak has decided the loss of an MP is better then the full story coming to light.

Leroy42

Yet again Sunak is on the the wrong side.

So much for accountability and integrity.

breezy1985

I only copped Wragg isn't even stepping down as an MP. So no by-election and no real punishment for what he done.

And the Tories get to have an "independent" MP on their side.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121999765#Comment_121999765

Because he doesn't hold the whip, I think he's not eligible to stand as a Tory candidate at the next election (unless the whip is restored before then). So this may signal an intent to stand down. (Or, of course, they may bend the rule for him.)

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121999821#Comment_121999821

He's on track to lose that seat to the Lib Dems anyway; if he was in a safe seat they'd either let him back in or parachute in someone they needed to save from elsewhere.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121999821#Comment_121999821

Not being able to stand as a Tory would normally be a punishment but not at the next election where he would likely lose either way.

Standing down at the next election is still a cop out. He should quit now.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121999885#Comment_121999885

You'll get no argument from me on that.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121999885#Comment_121999885

The word "should" has been completely shattered at this point by the amount of times we've had to use it for this government.

This is a party that openly believes that racism is ok for millionaires.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121995117#Comment_121995117

They've sorta backed themselves into a corner over Gaza but then they also did that unforced blunder over Thatcherism. These will come back to haunt them come 2028/2029.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122000906#Comment_122000906

They won't. People have very short memories. You have Tories clamouring for Johnson to return despite defenestrating him in 2022.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121999885#Comment_121999885

Why?

He's made a mistake. This is really a storm in a teacup.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122002625#Comment_122002625

Made a mistake ?

He gave out information to a known scammer. It was no mistake.

Edi: nevermind I just saw who I was replying to.

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122002629#Comment_122002629

I'm not sure it warrants him resigning his seat just because you say so.

It looks like a foolish young gay man who made a few mistakes.

A touch of homophobia about this non story.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122002625#Comment_122002625

He "made a mistake"

The man's a fùcking liability 😂

https://twitter.com/AvaSantina/status/1778059406141263880?t=6EjgwLDcrABdJsF6kltprA&s=19

Timberrrrrrrr

WOukd your boss be OK with you giving out the personal numbers of 12 of your work colleagues with you knowing they would be blackmailed?

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122002817#Comment_122002817

In fairness you could probably guess that password anyway it's so insecure.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122002649#Comment_122002649

Using the suffering of LGBT people to shut down criticism of a malevolent Tory. Disgusting.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122002649#Comment_122002649

In response to being blackmailed, he handed the blackmailer contact details for his colleagues so that they could be blackmailed too.

Yes, it's a mistake — the kind of mistake that shows you to lack the minimal character requirements for any kind of public trust. If the Tory party still had any self-respect this would be a mistake of the immediate career-ending kind.

The notion that it is "homophobic" to expect gay public representatives to meet the minimal standards of character, integrity and decency that we require in public representatives is offensively patronising to gays.

Pete_Cavan

The blackmailers were obviously going to come back for more, that's essentially how blackmail works and once you have given them something and compromised yourself further, they will take advantage of that (not to mention the fact that they will still have the photos used for the initial blackmail and there is no way he could ever be sure they are fully deleted so that they can't be used again so further blackmail was inevitable).

Given they were almost certainly going to continue blackmailing him, the most important question is; what else was he willing to give them? He clearly isn't fit to hold any position of power or influence. This is the kind of thing which should result in immediate removal as an MP, or at least being stood down pending outcome of an investigation, and it shouldn't be left up to the Tory party.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122003788#Comment_122003788

This. Both on grounds of judgment and on grounds of character he has demonstrated his unfitness for public trust.

If had just shared naughty pictures of himself with an anonymous Grindr contact and found himself being threatened with exposure, that would be a judgment lapse (obviously) but not a catastrophic one. There are probably a lot of people in the world who have shared potentially embarassing pictures of themselves with people who they should never have trusted, or in whom trust turned out to be misplaced. That may be an error of judgment but I think, in this day and age a common enough one and, therefore, I suspect a forgiveable one.

But when your anymous Grindr contact comes back and starts blackmailing you by threatening to publish your naughty pics, there's no longer any great difficulty about judging who you're dealing with; you're dealing with a blackmailer and you know you are.

It's the choice you make now that's crucial. The choice presented to Wragg was (a) tell the guy to publish and be damned, or (b) co-operate with him by assisting him to blackmail other people.

This isn't a situation in which it's hard to know what's the right thing to do, is it? In this case (as in many others) knowing the right choice to make is easy; it's actually making it that can be hard. Wragg chose option (b), which was a catastrophic choice, for two reasons.

First, he's now an accessory to attempts to blackmail his parliamentary colleagues, which is an unspeakably shïtty thing to do to them. Either he couldn't see that this was an unspeakably shïtty thing to do, or he could see it but did it anyway. Either conclusion is damning.

Second, even from a purely self-interested point of view he has acheived nothing by doing this; he has made his own vulnerability to blackmail much worse. Up to now, all the blackmailer had on him was the threat of exposure as someone who swaps naughty pictures of himself, to which may people mightsay "there but for the grace of God . . .". But, now, he can be exposed as someone who, when under pressure, co-operates with attempts to blackmail colleagues in public office. On any view, this is much, much worse that sharing dick pics.

So, from every possible point of view, this was a disastrous choice. Even if you set aside entirely the moral standards displayed by Wragg here, even if you accept for the sake of argument that he was entitled to act entirely selfishly with no regard for the consequences his actions might have for others, he still made an appalling choice; he acted in a way that put him in greater danger than he already was, and caused him greater harm than he had already suffered. Setting ethical issues aside, he has revealed himself as someone who cannot be trusted, when under pressure, to make a decision that passes even a basic test of rationality. When this guy is put under pressure, he panics; and when he panics, he does unbeleivably stupid things. This is not someone you can trust to make good decisions.

You might say that this is more weakness than evil, but so what? It's a combination of weaknesses that clearly, undeniably, renders him unfit for public office. He should go.

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122002649#Comment_122002649

No there isn't. If that guy wants to go on Grinder and send dick pics to strangers then that's entirely his business.

That's not what this is about though. When he was caught in a jam he sent, an obvious bad actor, private contact details of his colleagues and never told them about it - resulting in several of them being caught up in the same scam.

Not only is that unethical but it's a security risk. The guy should be out on his ear.

If you can't understand that then you're either a fool or you're being willfully ignorant.

Leroy42

And what else did he share? What government or Parliament knowledge has he passed on, to save himself.

Remember that. He did this purely to save himself. He was caught in an unfortunate bind, and chose to throw others and potentially much more, under the bus. To save himself.

And as usual, Sunaks response has nothing to do with integrity, accountability and professionalism and only what he can do to avoid doing anything at all.

breezy1985

As far as I am aware he is openly gay and has no reason not to be on Grindr. So if he had just admitted he was being blackmailed it wouldn't be a huge scandal and he probably would have a lot of sympathy and be seen as a "brave hero" with the general public given the amount of people who are victims of revenge porn these days.

I assume his great fear was the Mary Whitehouse's in his own party.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122004949#Comment_122004949

Or he was being blackmailed because he'd already revealed something more damaging than just a dick pic.

Timberrrrrrrr

Another rat deserting the sinking ship

Energy minister Graham Stuart resigns from government.

https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1778803182493180040?t=ivLGYIaTF3wbvorv1ExS-g&s=19

Capt'n Midnight

Meanwhile over on Conservative home they don't that CCHQ has realistic expectations.

"Since 2010 we have had 15 housing ministers and, unsurprisingly severely lacked a clear, stable, and deliverable policy." - It's a wee bit late to appeal to prospective homeowners methinks.

the Conservatives have adopted an 80/20 strategy for fighting the coming
general election: that means digging in to their 80 most marginal
seats, whilst also throwing resources at the 20 most marginal seats
where they ran other parties closest in 2019. Only 20% of members think this is the right thing to do. With most preferring to defend the marginals.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122012431#Comment_122012431

ConservativeHome? Really can't remember when I last heard of that website let alone visited it…

I am not convinced the LibDems will actually go down the road of becoming a British FDP that would sweep a load of blue-wall seats but Alan Clark mentioned back in the 80's or 90's about their ability to hold onto seats they did gain.

Patser

State of UK politics summed up here.

Reform Party, currently polling at 12-15%, dropped a candidate for inactivity, saying 'In an election year, cannot have a member doing nothing'.

Turns out he was dead. And afterwards they had to admit they'd no way to contact his family to apologise.

That's embarrassing, but also note that he was 1 of 50 candidates dropped for complete inactivity, others dropped for engaging in dodgy social media activity. How can they be perceived as a serious alternative, and poll so high, with candidates that know nothing about - except that British politics and media scrutiny has broken down.

https://x.com/BBCLookNorth/status/1778501533161640137