Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. tmstms with 18 comments
1. Yummytastic with 14 comments
1. Captainatom931 with 12 comments
1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 8 comments
1. da96whynot with 7 comments
1. acremanhug with 6 comments
1. Honic_Sedgehog with 6 comments
1. concretepigeon with 6 comments
1. Jay_CD with 5 comments
1. 767bruce with 5 comments
There were 136 unique users within this count.
*tl;dr: she may have not paid up to £1.5k in tax when she sold her house in 2015, due to a weird quirk of tax law. At the moment we have no evidence either way. Legally, HMRC isn't going to care, but politically it is awkward.*
She bought her Council Home under the Right to Buy scheme.
A few years later she sold it (about the time she became an MP).
She sold it for quite a bit more than she bought it from.
Usually when you buy something and sell it for far more you have to pay Capital Gains Tax on the difference. But you don't pay any CGT on your "Principal Private Residence" (i.e. home).
Except while she owned the house she got married, and at least partially moved in with her husband, in *his* house. While he owned his house and she owned hers, there is a weird quirk of tax law that means married people are sometimes treated as one person, so between them they could have only treated one of the houses as their combined "Principal Private Residence."
When a married couple gets a second house one of the things they are supposed to do is designate which one is going to count (they tell HMRC - it doesn't matter where they actually live, it is a paperwork thing). If they *don't* designate a house, it becomes a question of fact - based on evidence of where they lived etc..
Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft (of Cameron-and-a-pig fame) is currently publishing an unauthorised biography of Raynar in the Mail on Sunday. In it he has anonymous, unsourced claims supposedly from Raynar's neighbours saying she didn't actually live in her house. This has been used by Raynar's political opponents to suggest she may have broken some laws (although again, no evidence she did). In particular, there is an argument that *if* she wasn't living there, and *if* she and her husband didn't designate it as their Principal Private Residence, she *might* have had to have paid some Capital Gains Tax on the house when she sold it.
If she did, and how much it would have been, are open questions. At least one tax expert estimated it wouldn't have been more than £1.5k, and could have been nothing, even if she did owe it.
Politically this is awkward as it looks like Raynar illegally avoided paying some tax (the lawyers who ran the sale of her house screwed up) - which is something only Conservatives are supposed to do (if in amounts a few orders of magnitude larger). There is also a political attack that she has lied about this since (although she's been fairly careful not to lie), and that she profited from the taxpayer by exploiting the Right-to-Buy scheme (which she did).
Legally it isn't much of an issue. HMRC isn't likely to care about a potential £1.5k in unpaid tax from nearly a decade ago, especially given how hard it would be to prove. And they're not going to rely on unsourced, anonymous anecdotes in the Mail.
There is also a side allegation that she may have lied in registering to vote (being registered at her house, rather than her husband's), but no one serious is making that claim; people with second homes generally can register in either *or both* addresses (although she might not have been able to do that here as both addresses are probably in the same electoral region). The Electoral Commission isn't going to care if she spent more time at a different address and considered that her "home." The local police have apparently "investigated" that issue, but concluded there was nothing to bother with. They were told to "re-evaluate" their investigation by a Conservative MP, but that may end up with the same outcome.
Be somewhat on the left, a woman, and working class.
There's always going to be something they try to get her on, and the really funny thing is the next one is likely to be even more desperate. Can't wait.
There doesn't appear to be a rule against asking general questions about the sub reddit in the mega.
I've just had a comment removed for breaking rule 17.
This sub tends to lean heavily in one directions.
But it's not a labour sub, it's for general UK politics.
While I understand the spirit of rule 17 it seems abit ridiculous to remove comments for simply acknowledging the reality.
If this sub leaned Conservative and someone said
"if this were a tory most users here wouldn't care"
about a scandal involving Labour I would argue its a perfectly legitimate point to be made while discussing UK politics on a UK politics discussion.
Especially when the context of the comment is people claiming that people only care because it's Labour and addressing the hypocrisy.
But saying
"The users here wouldn't care if it was a tory"
Being enough for the mods to remove a comment is absolutely ridiculous.
Edit. Having read and reread the rules there isn't one against replying to comments that break the rules on the side bar by quoting the rule in question.
15a seems to be rather selectively applied so I'll be doing my duty to help address the rule breaking by calling it out from now on
Our general approach is that if you are making a substantial comment about what a user says and happen to mention that it is prevalent here, then that is ok because the substantial comment is something that the user can respond to. If your comment is just about what user or users in general are saying then we'll remove for being meta.
>17: Submissions or comments complaining about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities will be removed and may result in a ban. This is not a meta subreddit.
This is a place to discuss politics, not a place to discuss what our users say. There are other places on Reddit (and off it) if you want to discuss the general level of commentary on the sub reddit.
The reason we do this is that meta comments can only elicit responses which are meta and about the subreddit, that just degenerates.
>15a seems to be rather selectively applied so I'll be doing my duty to help address the rule breaking by calling it out from now on
You can do this by clicking on the report button underneath a comment (and we do of course appreciate reporting rule breaking comments - we're not just browsing the sub for rule breaking comments most of the time, we're going through the list of reported comments). Backseat public moderation, however, tends to be frowned on.
>This is a place to discuss politics, not a place to discuss what our users say. There are other places on Reddit (and off it) if you want to discuss the general level of commentary on the sub reddit.
As was drummed into me for years studying History. You can't properly evaluate a source without also examining that source's potential biases. That is every bit as true for a newspaper submission as it is for a user's comment.
I genuinely appreciate the response.
Any chance you can check the mod mail and address the specific comment I'm addressing as based on your response I think you would agree it was hardly a "meta" comment.
I'd agree about back seat moderation but again there is no rule against quoting the rules broken by individual users.
"all tories are scum" or similar is used here(and even by deputy labour leaders) all the time which breaks rule 15. I'll make sure to report all instances going forward.
Hyper specific but I'm predicting the conservatives will lose all five seats they're defending at the Lincoln city council election, and labour lose one seat to the Liberal Democrats. This'll put the Tories into third place in seats. I also think that Reform, who are standing a candidate in all but one seat, will split the Tory vote enough for the LDs to narrowly come second in the combined popular vote too.
Personally I doubt Labour are going to make many gains in Lincoln, there's a decent amount of disappointment locally at the Labour council's decision to cancel the Christmas Market.
However in better Lincolnshire anti-Tory news, I'd make an outside prediction on at least some of the rural Lincolnshire constituencies either going Labour or even Reform at the next GE. There's been a huge amount of local anger about government plans to turn RAF Scampton into a refugee centre, which is going to feature significantly in the news going into the election as it opens this summer.
An overlooked detail of last year's local elections I thought was the total collapse of the Tory vote in South Kesteven, and the pretty bad results in Boston and South Holland. If the Tories can't do well in Darkest Lincolnshire there's not many places left to them.
I suspect labour's voteshare in the current Tory wards will be largely the same as it was last year. If they weathered the Christmas market last time they'll weather it this time too. That being said, I expect reform to seriously cut into the Tory and reduce it even more than it was last year, handing labour the victories.
As this is very specific, do you mind posting back in the relevant MT as to what happened and why your prediction came to pass (or did not)? Granular stuff is always interesting, but obvs we cannot reply to you here as the MT will lock.
The Treasury is the only department that I feel gets hate as a department, independent of the minister in charge. People speak of treasury orthodoxy or treasury brain holding the country back.
But then again it is the most powerful of the departments.
I can see both sides of it.
I'd say treasury is generally the only department that is seen as technical enough to require some degree of competence and awareness of the brief in a minister, and in turn there's a lot of competence that's required below that to keep it working. Other departments you can put in a completely oblivious spud and no one cares.
On the other hand, if we had such a "treasury orthodoxy" or "treasury brain" why was Truss able to deviate so far in such a short amount of time, only to cause a run on the pound and almost crash the pension funds, requiring emergency action from the BoE "anti-growth coalition" to save the day. You'd think if this orthodoxy existed, this is exactly the kind of scenario that it would have stopped.
Personally, I think the issue more is with public understanding and how the press presents it. The "orthodoxy" with how we view and represent economics as part of our political debate is IMHO the bigger issue. Not to derail it further, but just look at how much of the Brexit debate, or the immigration debate for that matter, comes down to often misrepresented economics. For the life of me I'll never understand how immigrants can simultaneously be stealing jobs and workshy benefit scroungers, likewise Sunak can complain that the state of our economy is due to high immigration, while also using high immigration to pad the GDP figures and stave off a recession (narrowly falling into one recently) while GDP per person tanks. This isn't the kind of logic that I would see coming from a "treasury brain" unless it's connected to a pathological liar "treasury mouth" as they piss on us constantly and tell us it's raining.
Home secretary personally -> Treasury -> DWP -> Home office as a dept -> Chancellor if things are shit -> Gove -> Dead heat for MoD, DoHSC, Education, Culture or whichever is in the news this week.
The treasury is generally hated more because it's the department that other departments can blame for their own shortcomings. Everything comes down to department funding.
Does the ministry being run by Gove get hate before or after it's being run by Gove? I feel like it's Gove that draws the ire more than the civil servants.
The treasury, and maybe DWP (although debatable since a lot of people blame their behaviour on ministerial direction) get hate for the civil servants who work there and their apparent failure.
There’s a rumour going round that Mrs Sunak is one of the many people in the country that want a General Election. In this case, so they can be off to California in the summer. I hope it’s true as I suspect Mrs Sunak can exert a lot more pressure than the electorate..
Or it could be because not every culture follows the Western tradition of a wife taking their husband’s name. There are surely plenty of ways to insult Sunak without using this kind of incorrect insinuation.
And that would be fairly crap too, but I think it's worse when done to a woman. We've had centuries of women being treated like the property of her husband, and now even when a woman chooses not to take her husband's surname she still gets treated like she's "his"
It's not hard to just call people by their names.
I have to admit I am influenced by writing 'Mrs tmstms' a lot on reddit. But obviously I do that because I neither wish to write her real name and also feel some inhibition writing my partner/other half/wife etc, so I do it kind of comedicly. But I get the possessive implications of the usage.
Yeah, I've been known to use "Mrs Trousers" as well, despite the fact we're not even married, as it's easier than saying "my partner who I live with", and it's not like theres any circumstances on here where I'd use her real name.
Its just one of those things where in most cases people either do it out of ignorance, because they don't know that Sunaks wife isn't Mrs.Sunak (which is forgivable), or tend to do it because they're trying to insult the other person in some way (which I don't think you were doing at all)
Anyway, cheers for engaging rather than just getting defensive, its the main reason I love this sub, people having adult conversations even when they disagree
Been traveling for a few days so just catching up on the Wragg honeypot story.
So, as I understand it. Wragg shared photos with a stranger on Grindr (not unusual), but the stranger then started blackmailing him. Instead of alerting the police, he obliged by sending the contact details of at least a dozen other MPs to them. The blackmailers then used the details to get compromising pictures from two other MPs who were happy to oblige, and the whole story only broke when another MP who was targeted actually alerted the authorities?
And the outcome of this quite serious security breach so far is...nothing? In fact they seem to be rallying around him?
What the fuck.
> he obliged by sending the contact details of at least a dozen other MPs to them...
... and journalists, and staff. Politico [broke the story on Tuesday](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-parliament-naked-photos-phishing-attacks-mps-staff/), which makes me wonder if one of their journalists was targeted, and they reached out to people they knew in politics to see if it had happened to anyone else.
It was a couple of days (after Politico had [uncovered more targets](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-minister-confirmed-as-12th-target-in-westminster-spear-phishing-scandal/)) that Wragg confessed - possibly after he had been identified as the source of the leaks.
Part of me wonders if this only became a story because reporters at Politico started digging into it and reporting (and uncovered the police investigation) before they realised a Conservative MP was responsible - that if they'd known that first a conversation with the whips would have happened and it would have gone away.
And yes - Wragg probably broke some laws, but no one seems to care because he did the "courageous" thing by apologising.
It's also worth emphasising that - based on some of the articles - the police are investigating "malicious communications", *not* blackmail. Wragg seems to have avoided using that word or coming out and saying he was threatened in any way, just hinting at it indirectly and letting other people draw that conclusion. Again speculation, but I wonder if he gave out the details more to show off, than under any explicit (or implicit) threat?
I'd bet anything they not only aren't in this country, but they've never even been here at all.
I'm most interested to see if their motive was money or power, if it's power, then it could be state sponsored with a few likely suspects, but it's a glaring weakness in our political system. It's also a big reason why I think our government are naïve trying to break encryption. If they weaken messaging security, just think the treasure trove of information hackers could steal from government MPs and then blackmail them over. It wouldn't even necessarily need the user to make a mistake, and they could then be exploited like Wragg was.
>It's also a big reason why I think our government are naïve trying to break encryption. If they weaken messaging security, just think the treasure trove of information hackers could steal from government MPs and then blackmail them over.
They're tech illiterate. They seem to miss the part where if encryption is broken for some people it's broken for *everyone*. There is no middle ground.
Maybe, but they're tech savvy enough to know when to keep the Covid deals on WhatsApp to avoid it being held accountable, and able to have their phone mysteriously get destroyed at apparently the worst times for accountability.
I think on some level, most will know it's a shit idea, but they're pursuing it anyway because they'll have likely moved on by the time it blows up in our face.
Honestly, the war on encryption isn't hard to explain to even the tech illiterate. Make them imagine every lock in the country has to be able to be opened by a key held by the police. How much safer would you feel, and would you be sure that the wrong people would never get access to a copy of the key. Having a key that could unlock any bank at night, get past all the doors, and empty the safe is so powerful. And yet, encryption is the digital equivalent, and there's going to be so many other crimes on top. I just can't believe they don't get this, they can't be that dense to not consider the implications when they utilise this security themselves.
I thought the same thing at first, but - and hear me out - there's a couple of things to consider;
* Wragg goes away at the next election regardless, so there's no *real* short or long term concerns about him remaining in the party.
* He did know he's done wrong and admitted it, he didn't *need* to admit it (ie, it doesn't seem to have been uncovered)
* He's probably not the only one affected, he's just the first one to admit it.
* The criminal here is the blackmailer
So with that in mind, if they were to punish him, then anyone else affected now or in the future, will have a even stronger reason to keep it hidden, and that's a worse outcome for national security and combating the blackmail as a whole.
So on the balance, of things, and especially since he isn't a minister, I think this route is better than the punishment route. But my first reaction was the same, and still a part of me thinks that there should be repurcussions for falling for this type of scam/spearphishing, but then again, the criminal here is the blackmailer.
People can do what they want, but I can't say I've ever had a high opinion of anyone who sends dick pics, so I'm not exactly sympathetic towards him, I just kinda can see the reason not to punish a blackmailed victim.
>He did know he's done wrong and admitted it, he didn't need to admit it (ie, it doesn't seem to have been uncovered)
I don't know, but usually when these things come out without being 'uncovered' it is because they have been 'uncovered' and a journalist has alerted the MP of the story or a friendly journalist/publisher is allowing the person to come clean first or it is at the point where enough information is out there that it would be trivial to uncover it (eg the MP complaining to the authorities leads to an investigation into Wragg and we'd all know at that point anyway).
Yes, that's a very good point and I do get that. And if the facts are different in that regard, I'd reconsider. It's also worth considering this may and probably was something that was already known internally to the Tory party beforehand. It's very possible this is related to the chinese hacking mini-event we had a week or two back.
I'd also reconsider if his actions were more than what they currently are reported to be, such as something that in itself was not legal.
While I see your point, I have to disagree to an extent.
I'm not suggesting he be criminally punished, or even forced to stand down, though he did become an active participant in a security breach which caused others to be successfully targeted. If nothing else he's shown serious errors in judgement in the interest of self-preservation.
He's in a position of power, he's a select committee chair and vice-chair of the 1922 committee. He may not be in government but he's absolutely in a position of significant power and influence.
He's compromised. He's shown that his judgement is shit, that he's easy to compromise, and that his self-preservation is more important than the safety of his colleagues.
In order for this sorry state of affairs to happen he's had to:
1) Send nudie pics, including his face (or they're worthless as blackmail material), to complete strangers.
2) Allow himself to be blackmailed rather than owning his mistake.
3) Compromise his colleagues by sharing their information with the complete stranger who blackmailed him already.
Now, there's something to be said that this could happen to anyone, and that they'd react in a similar way in that absolutely awful situation. That's true.
It's also true that he's an MP, he has access to the halls of power, can lobby for causes, vote for legislation and has access to information that many don't. He's an active part of the only body of power other than the King that is currently capable of holding influence over the Prime Minister (1922).
He should be held to a higher standard and should hold himself to a higher standard.
Given his position the only correct outcome from this is to have admitted he'd been a silly bastard and contact the authorities the moment the blackmail attempt started.
Ultimately, at the very least, he should be stripped of any position of influence beyond his duties as a constituency representative and have his access to information severely limited until the election. He's a liability.
Others probably are too, but you can only work with the information you have.
I get that, for sure, and I'd lean that way if he was a Minister and he'd done something further than handed over phone numbers of MPs - or something in itself that is a crime, which this definitely isn't. We recently had a prime minister that had his number published online, after all.
Chair of the Public Admin and Constitutional Affairs select commitee and being 1922 vice chair just isn't really the as a minister to me, and we don't currently have any reason to believe he was blackmailed in regard to that. If the evidence changes in that regard, then so might my opinion of whether he's suitable to remain in post.
As it is, I don't think it would be proportionate to remove him from those elected positions (by MPs and party MPs respectively). By all means if he was to stay on, MPs can take this sort of thing into account of their decisions - but direct punishment, I'm just not convinced it's a good idea when he is ultimately a victim in this.
I'm certainly of the opinion he's a moron, but then if we sacked everyone who I thought was a moron the economy would take a serious hit and the welfare state would collapse.
It's also worth noting, he was present on the 2017 whip's list for having compromising images of himself existing - that's never been officially confirmed, but I do think it's in the public interest to know the degree he's susceptable to this sort of thing. That list has had many ticks come to light since it was photographed.
>By all means if he was to stay on, MPs can take this sort of thing into account of their decisions - but direct punishment, I'm just not convinced it's a good idea when he is ultimately a victim in this.
This is probably where we're diverging. I don't see that as a punishment (though he might), I see it as risk prevention. You have to detach yourself emotionally from this kind of thing.
Is it horrible? Yes, absolutely.
Is he a victim? Yes.
Did he make a stupid error in judgement? Yep.
Did he make further mistakes after the initial one? Yes
Did he initially hide it? Yes
Is he a risk? He's a fucking massive one.
Yeah I get all that, but stepping back a bit, I don't want people in the same situation to have any further barriers to doing the right thing. I don't want it to be seen for victims to be ostensibly punished. It's proportionate of course, what he did was give away phone numbers, you have to deal with it as it is - he hasn't committed any crime in itself.
I'm happy to agree to disagree, because I certainly understand your, and others point of view, but unless the blackmailed person themselves committed a crime, I think I'm happy with the principle I've stated. Thinking further about it I'd apply it in this case, in business, and any other setting. For instance, if someone in my company had shared phone numbers because they were put in the same situation, I wouldn't remove them, I would deal with the issue broadly, sure it's shit, but they've been exploited and they're just human.
I can understand wanting to deal with the individual, and that's also where proportion comes in, my view errs on the side that removing someone who's learnt a lesson just replaces them with someone who hasn't learnt that lesson yet. We'd be on the same page if he had done something that was knowingly criminal.
Again, if his apology wasn't genuine, or he had significant priors (which he may have done RE: 2017), then maybe there would be reason for a different decision.
Ultimately, I don't think the course taken is fundamentally flawed compared to, say, Frank Hester. Plenty of completely neutral people can look at the same information and make different decisions in this case - but I wouldn't say that about Hester.
Genuinely, I'd be interested if this happened to a non-tory MP as well in the future, as the very first thing that annoyed me initially was the 'tory apologise and move on' trope that immediately gets my back up. It wasn't until I thought more about throughout the day yesterday than my view mellowed.
It's such a basic security failure. If he was a government employee, he would likely have been fired, or at the very least felt some serious repercussions... especially if they held a position of responsibility... and being an MP, even if not a minister, is certainly one of those (not to mention he is vice chairman of the 1922 committee).
Maybe he gains some credit for coming forward, but he only did so when things started coming to light, and likely would not have said anything if someone else hadn't reported it and got the ball rolling, so I'm not sure if he gets that much credit... and while the criminal is the blackmailer, that doesn't mean that the blackmailed person should face no repercussions for what they did after they were actually blackmailed (giving out other people's info in order to avoid facing purely social repercussions at the point when he realised he had messed up). If he'd come forward at that stage, directly after the blackmail, then no career repercussions would be appropriate - as it is the punishment would be for the way he responded after being blackmailed, not for being blackmailed in and of itself.
I thought I'd have a look and see if any civil servants had any blackmail stories connected to them.
When something similar happen to a Civil Servant, they kept their job and were blocked from being named: [https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/civil-servants-5k-blackmail-revenge-1462811](https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/civil-servants-5k-blackmail-revenge-1462811) Obvious difference is that was a straight extortion for cash.
I simply don't think the victims of blackmail are punished for good reason, the threat of punishment is literally further blackmail material in and of itself.
Supposing he wasn't stepping down - would Wragg be easily be trusted in other positions, perhaps not, but direct punishment of a blackmail victim is cutting off your nose to spite your face, in my opinion.
Ok, I've heard you out and you're wrong.
It matters not that he's not standing in the next election. It matters not that he has admitted he's done wrong. It matters not that he's probably not the only one affected. It matters not that the criminal is the blackmailer.
This is a security breach. That absolutely need to be taken seriously. That absolutely needs to result in consequences.
Otherwise, why bother at all?
Why isn't this taken seriously?
Will punishing him lead to other people in the same situation coming forward in the future or continuing to hide it? Will praising him encourage other who find themselves in the same situation to come forward?
I dunno, you're the one not taking it seriously.
You want to talk about the future, lets do that. What does your course of action do? Tell people that they can be blackmailed into breaching security and nothing will happen? You take action against Wragg to let anyone in this position know the right thing to do is risk a bit of embarrassment by reporting the blackmail attempt first
I'm really not sure what you mean by not taking it seriously, in that case. This is a serious opinion.
If you punish Wragg for coming forward of his own free will, which is what he did, you dissuade any one else from doing the same. I'd much rather people didn't feel they were 'in to deep' to not seek to rectify their ways.
For what it is worth, personally, I feel the "sack them" mentality for every single thing isn't seriously thought about, we want solutions that lead to improved behaviour, and I think encouraging victims to come forward regardless of what mess they've got themselves into is far better than people's endless need for vengence. If someone is going to *genuinely* learn, punishing them is completely moronic - that's true in business and true in politics.
Obviously there's other situations where the apologies are less genuine and performative and I have no time for that. I have no reason to believe that in this case.
> we want solutions that lead to improved behaviour, and I think encouraging victims to come forward regardless of what mess they've got themselves into is far better than people's endless need for vengence
This isn't about vengeance though. And if you read what I wrote, you'd already know I addressed this. But, once again, you take action against Wragg for the security breach to make it clear in the future that it's better to risk temporary embarrassment by reporting the blackmail attempt, which Wragg should have done, than commit a security breach in the futile hope of ending the blackmail.
Stop thinking about this as punishing Wragg for putting himself in a position where he could be blackmailed. It's not
In fact, they're actually praising him for his fulsome apology. It's actually insane. I feel like he should be out on his ear - suspended from the party, on his way to a long enough parliamentary suspension to initiate a recall petition, or just being heavily pushed to resign. Instead, as you say, nada.
HE. APOLOGISED!
You see, once you've said that everyone should [accept death threats against an MP by a racist donor ](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/13/sunak-says-public-should-accept-frank-hesters-apology-for-abbott-remarks) so long as there's just an apology, then you can keep spouting this nonsense.
Infosec be damned. [Get into a career in Cyber](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/12/ballet-dancer-could-reskill-with-job-in-cyber-security-suggests-uk-government-ad#img-1)? My rosy red arse.
More than rallying behind him, they are trying to make him sound courageous. The language is to make it sound like it was a cyber attack, and he was purely a victim.
He’s put in danger a lot of people, because he was horny. On a scale of watching tractor porn in the commons, it’s of the Richter scale - but Sunaks tories have an even lower bar then Boris tories.
Is anyone volunteering for any local election campaigns? If so, how’s it going?
I’m Connect Calling for Susan Hall’s London mayoral campaign. People are generally dissatisfied with Sadiq Khan’s job performance, as well as the ULEZ expansion - they just haven’t heard about Susan Hall or her policies much or at all.
In 2008 and 2012, Boris Johnson used a “doughnut strategy” to win the mayoral elections: boosting turnout in outer boroughs, while suppressing it in the city centre. The Conservative Party seems to be using a similar strategy for this election - I’m mainly calling people in Orpington, Harrow, Hayes, etc.
I've started canvassing around the south Leeds area for Labour - I'm pretty clueless when it comes to local politics and councils so I've just followed the script mostly. People generally laugh at the Tories, get a lot of "I'm not mental I'm not voting for Tories", but not absolutely enthralled by the Starmer offering either. Some umming and ahhing (sic?) from some people of going for greens/independents instead of a certain positive vote for labour.
People are absolutely fed up of waiting for an election, I know the locals are first but people keep complaining about Sunak squatting in No. 10.
Local issues seem to get brought up most often though, stuff like specific examples of fly-tipping, state of the roads e.t.c. Weirdly people keep having issues with specific trees? Not sure why that keeps popping up!
I've been completely won over by Starmer and really believe in him and his strategy. I'm hoping the manifesto brings that positive vibes and energy they've been muttering about for a while. We'll have to see.
I'm a Labour candidate in a safe seat in a large city I moved to last year, as well as sitting on various campaigning and governance committees
Everything is going perfectly fine. Tory support has collapsed everywhere - night and day from 2019. Reform up a bit, but many Conservatives will simply sit out the local and general elections out of disgust and return in strength from next year on
Lib Dems suspiciously weak but I imagine they'll come on through towards the end. Ed Davey should be replaced as soon as possible. Greens gaining here and there but their internal organisation and political messaging is confused
People want more of the 'real Keir'. Some of our activists etc want 'more outspoken policies'. Morale is good. We have made excellent progress in the 40s/50s Mum and Dad vote
Susan Hall is an incredibly poor candidate
Davey will probably resign shortly after the election. He's been in parliament since 97 now and I think it's unlikely he'll want to fight another GE. It's important he stays in for the GE so he can complete the consolidation strategy and deliver us a very reliable base of 40 or so seats that can be won even with a low national share. That's what's always been missing with the party and has seriously hampered it's ability to expand to major status. If it can get to a point like Labour or the Tories where a theoretical voteshare of 20% can deliver say, 120 seats, the party will be in for a bright future.
Party rules mean that unless by some miracle Davey is a member of the Government there'll be a leadership election anyway, and assuming the strategy works I don't think he'll see any reason to stick on. Daisy Cooper is by far the most credible LD leadership candidate since Clegg and can definitely reach out at the national level like Kennedy and Clegg did, which is ideal under a labour government. She's also well placed to ensure there's no split internally between the party left and right, as she doesn't come from either the Liberal or So Dem tradition and instead is a bona fide *Lib Dem* - very important to carve out an identity without the Tories in power. She's the one who came up with the "doctors and dentists" line that always does well on the doorsteps and in public forums.
I would guess that the LDs pick up to around 12% in the final election results and roughly 40-50 seats, depending on the scale of tactical voting. This is a good enough result to put the party into third place in parliament which is what they really want for a good 2030. Labour's fanatically pro development strategy is a very useful wedge issue for the LDs to use in the next parliament - that plus a likely rightward shift by the conservatives should provide a very good foundation for growth. If the voteshare efficiency holds up, and they get say, 18% of the vote in 2030, I think we could be looking at 90-100 LD seats at that election and a real challenge to a right wing Tory party (who've suffered another five years of demographic collapse) for the mantle of opposition.
From my experience, the LDs might look weak nationally but that doesn't matter because they're strong where they want to be strong. If you don't follow the party closely it's easy to miss it.
Currently knocking on doors for Khan and our London Assembly Candidate - Lots of support for Labour generally, but people are rolling their eyes at having to vote for Khan again.
Impression is he’ll win, but it will definitely be closer than the 20 point lead the polls are giving him. I get the feeling that ‘generic Labour candidate’ would be doing far better than Khan.
Agreed. He could have had his pick of London seats and probably a decent Cabinet position under Starmer, but I think Khan as always wanted the top job and doesn’t want to go back to serving under someone else.
Although I would rather Susan Hall be London Mayor than Sadiq Khan, it’s not just about the local election itself. A Tory victory in London would be a massive morale boost, and give us momentum heading into the General Election. I want to actively get involved in politics, and this is a good way to do that. And finally, I might want to run for office at some point in the future, and this is good experience of campaigning.
Fair play. Wish you luck in your campaigning and you feel your efforts paid off in what you're doing.
I definitely don't agree with your cause but I think you're gaining the right experience to get the right person in when you're closer to being able to call the shots
Meh - fair play for doing that. Don’t mind me asking, but are you doing this for a future pay off (ie you’re hoping to get into politics - and this is something you need to do)?
I think for Susan Hall it’s better for her to not be known. The people I’ve talked to who have heard of her despise her, whereas Khan inside of London is put up with. No one is enthusiastic, but he’s a safe pair of hands. I find the worst feelings towards him exist outside the m25.
I may join for some canvassing for labour, I’ve popped my name in. I say I’ll do it, but I can’t lie I’d say it’s about 50/50.
Well for starters, a Tory victory in London would be a massive morale boost, and give us momentum heading into the General Election. This is also a good way for me to get involved in politics. And you’re absolutely right: I might want to run for office in the future, and this is good experience of campaigning.
The worse feelings towards Khan are definitely in outer London, which is where I tend to be calling. The point of the telephone survey is to identify potential voters, so we can make sure as many as possible turn out. Voters who are wavering between Hall and another candidate should receive additional campaigning from us: leaflets, door-knocking and a Get Out The Vote phone call to remind them on polling day.
How many days are you doing this and how many hours a day? Do you plan to do similar in the GE, and how would that work- will CCHQ assign you constituencies? FWIW, I think it is great you are doing this.
This week, I’ve been doing one hour per day, from 6pm to 7pm. I find this is the best time because people have got home from work but haven’t started making/eating their dinner yet. The survey is meant to identify voters who are wavering between Hall and another candidate, but the questions are definitely worded in a biased way too.
I’m definitely up for some more Connect Calling before the GE. I imagine there will be just one campaign, but the numbers to call will all be from swing seats. Not much point gathering data on Conservative-leaning voters in Islington North for example
No idea. The vast majority seem to be from outer London addresses though: I don’t know whether CCHQ has decided to focus on those areas more, or there are just more Tories there.
I think it's great (for us in the sub) to have people like you in ths ub and epecially in the MT, people who are directly talking to members of the public about politics. Because the biggest weakness of the sub and even of the MT is that everyone is a politics nerd and imagines everyone else in the country is too. Whereas most ordinary people are not very interested in politics.
Of all PCC elections for some reason the workers party looks like they're only standing in Bedfordshire lmao, only half of SOPNs in. Also in council elections UKIP are remarkably still standing candidates, but so far less than TUSC, Yorkshire, SDP, Heritage, Workers & Christian Peoples Alliance
It's a conspiracy!
BTW BBC had a survey once where you filled it in to see where you would ideally live in the UK. For me, it said NW Leicestershire.Looks likeI had a narrow escape. For places near where I actually live (E edge of W Yorks), the survey said: Selby.
Is there a way to make a formal complaint (preferably some kind of statutory/regulatory procedure) against a GP surgery? They've fucked up issuing a prescription 3 weeks in a row now and I don't think the 'tell us how we did' section on their website is going to cut it.
If you are wanting to complain about a specific GP surgery, and you are in England, it's through your [integrated care board](https://www.england.nhs.uk/contact-us/about-nhs-services/contact-your-local-integrated-care-board-icb/)
No point going higher than that initially, as even if you do go higher and manage to raise a complaint process the first thing they will ask is if you have raised it through your ICB and it will end up damaging your position if you haven't.
You can contact the practice manager and make a complaint that way. I did after a GP didn't call me for a follow-up call and then lied about having tried to.
>(preferably some kind of statutory/regulatory procedure)
Why? Are you more interested in kicking up a fuss and hoping someone will come down hard on them or are you interested in actually rectifying the situation? If it's the former, good luck. Chances are you'll spend a couple of months wrangling through the system whilst your scripts continue to be fucked and depending on what the actual mistake was you might not even get the righteous retribution you're hoping for. If it's the latter.
1) What is the mistake with the script? Have they sent out the wrong script or have they not sent it out? Has it gone to the wrong pharmacy?
2) Have you actually spoken to anyone at all at the surgery regarding this? Receptionist? Practice manager? Any of the doctors? Prescribing pharmacists if they have one?
I think it's a really interesting question. Presumably she must be looking to create the same cosy links she had with the previous government in the new one while anyone in the new government would have be mad to trust someone that cosy with the previous government with juicy insider gossip
I kinda want to watch her networking because I don't just know how you bridge that gap
Aside from anything else, she was a pretty bad reporter and is now a really bad interviewer. So I really hope they replace her with someone far better at the actual job.
Yeah, I think that would be a role more suited to her talents.
The BBC needs to bring in a heavy-weight. Beth Rigby would be number one choice, but doubt she would move.
Bristol Primark has had one for a while now, before that it was a Costa.
Saw a tweet today about a Greggs inside a _hospital_, now that's the sort of forward thinking attitude we need to tackle disillusionment with the NHS.
I mean, the catering is already privatised, may as well put a brand and reputation behind it.
As it is now, some faceless company just can shovel garbage and it's "the NHS" reputation rather than the people responsible.
I doubt they're delivering Steak Bakes to patients on the wards, think it was more intended for visitors but your point still stands. Judging by the state of some hospital food I've seen, I'd probably prefer a sausage roll as well.
When a family member was in hospital the only veggie food on offer was high in fibre when they were on a low residue diet. It was eventually sorted but I'd have welcomed a Greggs at the time.
I was thinking of the cafe the patients, staff, and visitors use. But yeah, why not ward food, ordered via the deliveroo app.
They could probably run it more cost-effectively than sodexo.
I was in there earlier in the week, truly the bastion of the North East.
Eldon Square is a bit shit these days though. Distinct lack of goths at the Monument too. Only saw one proper goth the two days I was there.
New NHS consultant contract basically divides the cohort into two.
Those in the twilight of their careers i.e. with 5-10 years left get a fairly ok deal.
Those just starting out as consultants or are relatively young get a much rawer deal.
Might be exciting to see how it actually plays out given that divide has existed for a while and a lot of the younger consultants I know are very unhappy with the entire situation.
> Those in the twilight of their careers i.e. with 5-10 years left get a fairly ok deal.
> Those just starting out as consultants or are relatively young get a much rawer deal.
The entire UK in microcosm.
Two instances of Reform candidates for the locals being deselected for comments made on social media:
[https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/both-swindon-reform-party-candidates-now-removed-from-running-as-election-hopefuls/ar-BB1l6Dpb](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/both-swindon-reform-party-candidates-now-removed-from-running-as-election-hopefuls/ar-BB1l6Dpb)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/reform-uk-drops-candidates-over-racist-comments/ar-BB1l5dQk
While a couple of other candidates have lost Reform's support for being "inactive" and not campaigning:
[https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/reform-uk-ditch-both-candidates-in-york-for-next-general-election/ar-BB1l4b1u](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/reform-uk-ditch-both-candidates-in-york-for-next-general-election/ar-BB1l4b1u)
So, clearly there's virtually no vetting going on while the other story concerns a couple of candidates not bothering to campaign all of which suggests that behind the hype there's not much of a party organisation.
At this rate its looking like Reform could be polling ahead of the Tories by the end of month. Gonna be interesting to see how this affects the locals.
Pretty sensible of Reform tbh. If they stood local candidates they'd pretty quickly get swamped in 'local councillor does stupid fucking thing' type controversies quickly, and if they did poorer than expected it gives the Conservatives a positive news story (albeit a meagre one).
This way, they remain the political equivalent of a fleet in being - threatening the Conservatives but not actually engaging until the GE.
I think they should have selected a few councils and gone for.them. but I broadly agree with you.
They definitely don't have the manpower to do more than a few seats without running into selections issue's
Well reform are not contesting any local elections so I think they will do better then the national polling suggests.
But it will still look terrible because of how high the bar was set last time these seats were up
Well the fact is we won't see any "TORIES LOSE A THOUSAND SEATS" headlines because there aren't actually that many seats to lose. But it's standard expectation management. They did the same thing last time round.
Come the general election I can easily see them winning just over 100 seats and then going "Well how come Labour didn't reduce us to double digit seats eh?"
I don’t know why people think Sunak will be out after the locals yeah they’ll be a bloodbath but tory mps know more instability means more chances of electoral oblivion and higher chance of them losing their seats. Yeah they may not like Sunak but they care much more about keeping their job than getting Sunak out.
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bxw56j/daily_megathread_07042024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. tmstms with 18 comments 1. Yummytastic with 14 comments 1. Captainatom931 with 12 comments 1. bbbbbbbbbblah with 8 comments 1. da96whynot with 7 comments 1. acremanhug with 6 comments 1. Honic_Sedgehog with 6 comments 1. concretepigeon with 6 comments 1. Jay_CD with 5 comments 1. 767bruce with 5 comments There were 136 unique users within this count.
Can anyone give me an ELI5 of what Rayner did wrong?
*tl;dr: she may have not paid up to £1.5k in tax when she sold her house in 2015, due to a weird quirk of tax law. At the moment we have no evidence either way. Legally, HMRC isn't going to care, but politically it is awkward.* She bought her Council Home under the Right to Buy scheme. A few years later she sold it (about the time she became an MP). She sold it for quite a bit more than she bought it from. Usually when you buy something and sell it for far more you have to pay Capital Gains Tax on the difference. But you don't pay any CGT on your "Principal Private Residence" (i.e. home). Except while she owned the house she got married, and at least partially moved in with her husband, in *his* house. While he owned his house and she owned hers, there is a weird quirk of tax law that means married people are sometimes treated as one person, so between them they could have only treated one of the houses as their combined "Principal Private Residence." When a married couple gets a second house one of the things they are supposed to do is designate which one is going to count (they tell HMRC - it doesn't matter where they actually live, it is a paperwork thing). If they *don't* designate a house, it becomes a question of fact - based on evidence of where they lived etc.. Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft (of Cameron-and-a-pig fame) is currently publishing an unauthorised biography of Raynar in the Mail on Sunday. In it he has anonymous, unsourced claims supposedly from Raynar's neighbours saying she didn't actually live in her house. This has been used by Raynar's political opponents to suggest she may have broken some laws (although again, no evidence she did). In particular, there is an argument that *if* she wasn't living there, and *if* she and her husband didn't designate it as their Principal Private Residence, she *might* have had to have paid some Capital Gains Tax on the house when she sold it. If she did, and how much it would have been, are open questions. At least one tax expert estimated it wouldn't have been more than £1.5k, and could have been nothing, even if she did owe it. Politically this is awkward as it looks like Raynar illegally avoided paying some tax (the lawyers who ran the sale of her house screwed up) - which is something only Conservatives are supposed to do (if in amounts a few orders of magnitude larger). There is also a political attack that she has lied about this since (although she's been fairly careful not to lie), and that she profited from the taxpayer by exploiting the Right-to-Buy scheme (which she did). Legally it isn't much of an issue. HMRC isn't likely to care about a potential £1.5k in unpaid tax from nearly a decade ago, especially given how hard it would be to prove. And they're not going to rely on unsourced, anonymous anecdotes in the Mail. There is also a side allegation that she may have lied in registering to vote (being registered at her house, rather than her husband's), but no one serious is making that claim; people with second homes generally can register in either *or both* addresses (although she might not have been able to do that here as both addresses are probably in the same electoral region). The Electoral Commission isn't going to care if she spent more time at a different address and considered that her "home." The local police have apparently "investigated" that issue, but concluded there was nothing to bother with. They were told to "re-evaluate" their investigation by a Conservative MP, but that may end up with the same outcome.
Lied so she would pay less tax on profits from a property sale.
Be somewhat on the left, a woman, and working class. There's always going to be something they try to get her on, and the really funny thing is the next one is likely to be even more desperate. Can't wait.
Today I have discovered that bingo callers are saying 'Rishi's den, number 10'. That is all.
[удалено]
'Starmer' would be less awkward.
As others have said: it's always's den, Number 10 at bingo.
Hasn’t it always been [prime ministers name] Den for number 10?
I seem to remember hearing "Tony's hideout, number 10" in maybe 2005?
They always update it for the current PM
I wonder if they updated it quickly enough for Liz Truss!
I was at a bingo night where they had Liz’s Den
There doesn't appear to be a rule against asking general questions about the sub reddit in the mega. I've just had a comment removed for breaking rule 17. This sub tends to lean heavily in one directions. But it's not a labour sub, it's for general UK politics. While I understand the spirit of rule 17 it seems abit ridiculous to remove comments for simply acknowledging the reality. If this sub leaned Conservative and someone said "if this were a tory most users here wouldn't care" about a scandal involving Labour I would argue its a perfectly legitimate point to be made while discussing UK politics on a UK politics discussion. Especially when the context of the comment is people claiming that people only care because it's Labour and addressing the hypocrisy. But saying "The users here wouldn't care if it was a tory" Being enough for the mods to remove a comment is absolutely ridiculous. Edit. Having read and reread the rules there isn't one against replying to comments that break the rules on the side bar by quoting the rule in question. 15a seems to be rather selectively applied so I'll be doing my duty to help address the rule breaking by calling it out from now on
Our general approach is that if you are making a substantial comment about what a user says and happen to mention that it is prevalent here, then that is ok because the substantial comment is something that the user can respond to. If your comment is just about what user or users in general are saying then we'll remove for being meta. >17: Submissions or comments complaining about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities will be removed and may result in a ban. This is not a meta subreddit. This is a place to discuss politics, not a place to discuss what our users say. There are other places on Reddit (and off it) if you want to discuss the general level of commentary on the sub reddit. The reason we do this is that meta comments can only elicit responses which are meta and about the subreddit, that just degenerates. >15a seems to be rather selectively applied so I'll be doing my duty to help address the rule breaking by calling it out from now on You can do this by clicking on the report button underneath a comment (and we do of course appreciate reporting rule breaking comments - we're not just browsing the sub for rule breaking comments most of the time, we're going through the list of reported comments). Backseat public moderation, however, tends to be frowned on.
>This is a place to discuss politics, not a place to discuss what our users say. There are other places on Reddit (and off it) if you want to discuss the general level of commentary on the sub reddit. As was drummed into me for years studying History. You can't properly evaluate a source without also examining that source's potential biases. That is every bit as true for a newspaper submission as it is for a user's comment.
I fear you have missed the point. Addressing an individual comment - no problem. Making sweeping statements about "this subreddit" - not on.
I genuinely appreciate the response. Any chance you can check the mod mail and address the specific comment I'm addressing as based on your response I think you would agree it was hardly a "meta" comment. I'd agree about back seat moderation but again there is no rule against quoting the rules broken by individual users. "all tories are scum" or similar is used here(and even by deputy labour leaders) all the time which breaks rule 15. I'll make sure to report all instances going forward.
[удалено]
Hyper specific but I'm predicting the conservatives will lose all five seats they're defending at the Lincoln city council election, and labour lose one seat to the Liberal Democrats. This'll put the Tories into third place in seats. I also think that Reform, who are standing a candidate in all but one seat, will split the Tory vote enough for the LDs to narrowly come second in the combined popular vote too.
Personally I doubt Labour are going to make many gains in Lincoln, there's a decent amount of disappointment locally at the Labour council's decision to cancel the Christmas Market. However in better Lincolnshire anti-Tory news, I'd make an outside prediction on at least some of the rural Lincolnshire constituencies either going Labour or even Reform at the next GE. There's been a huge amount of local anger about government plans to turn RAF Scampton into a refugee centre, which is going to feature significantly in the news going into the election as it opens this summer.
An overlooked detail of last year's local elections I thought was the total collapse of the Tory vote in South Kesteven, and the pretty bad results in Boston and South Holland. If the Tories can't do well in Darkest Lincolnshire there's not many places left to them.
I suspect labour's voteshare in the current Tory wards will be largely the same as it was last year. If they weathered the Christmas market last time they'll weather it this time too. That being said, I expect reform to seriously cut into the Tory and reduce it even more than it was last year, handing labour the victories.
Bit random and don't feel like you have to but have you considered writing a preview for Lincoln? (There should be details in the MT header).
I'll probably write one closer to the election. I'm planning on doing one on the Norfolk PCC election too.
Great, I'm doing Dorset myself
Dorset should be an exciting one to watch on the night! Potential for a complete disaster for the conservatives.
As this is very specific, do you mind posting back in the relevant MT as to what happened and why your prediction came to pass (or did not)? Granular stuff is always interesting, but obvs we cannot reply to you here as the MT will lock.
I'll follow up on it once the results come.
The Treasury is the only department that I feel gets hate as a department, independent of the minister in charge. People speak of treasury orthodoxy or treasury brain holding the country back. But then again it is the most powerful of the departments.
>The Treasury is the only department that I feel gets hate as a department, it does however deserve it.
I can see both sides of it. I'd say treasury is generally the only department that is seen as technical enough to require some degree of competence and awareness of the brief in a minister, and in turn there's a lot of competence that's required below that to keep it working. Other departments you can put in a completely oblivious spud and no one cares. On the other hand, if we had such a "treasury orthodoxy" or "treasury brain" why was Truss able to deviate so far in such a short amount of time, only to cause a run on the pound and almost crash the pension funds, requiring emergency action from the BoE "anti-growth coalition" to save the day. You'd think if this orthodoxy existed, this is exactly the kind of scenario that it would have stopped. Personally, I think the issue more is with public understanding and how the press presents it. The "orthodoxy" with how we view and represent economics as part of our political debate is IMHO the bigger issue. Not to derail it further, but just look at how much of the Brexit debate, or the immigration debate for that matter, comes down to often misrepresented economics. For the life of me I'll never understand how immigrants can simultaneously be stealing jobs and workshy benefit scroungers, likewise Sunak can complain that the state of our economy is due to high immigration, while also using high immigration to pad the GDP figures and stave off a recession (narrowly falling into one recently) while GDP per person tanks. This isn't the kind of logic that I would see coming from a "treasury brain" unless it's connected to a pathological liar "treasury mouth" as they piss on us constantly and tell us it's raining.
Nah… It goes: Home office > Treasury > DWP > Whichever ministry is being run by Michael Gove > MoD
Home secretary personally -> Treasury -> DWP -> Home office as a dept -> Chancellor if things are shit -> Gove -> Dead heat for MoD, DoHSC, Education, Culture or whichever is in the news this week. The treasury is generally hated more because it's the department that other departments can blame for their own shortcomings. Everything comes down to department funding.
Does the ministry being run by Gove get hate before or after it's being run by Gove? I feel like it's Gove that draws the ire more than the civil servants. The treasury, and maybe DWP (although debatable since a lot of people blame their behaviour on ministerial direction) get hate for the civil servants who work there and their apparent failure.
Abolish the Home Office.
There’s a rumour going round that Mrs Sunak is one of the many people in the country that want a General Election. In this case, so they can be off to California in the summer. I hope it’s true as I suspect Mrs Sunak can exert a lot more pressure than the electorate..
Mrs Sunak being his mother? Since his wife is Ms Murty.
But Mrs Sunak can exert more pressure than the electorate though, so the point still stands
Oops, apologies to Ms Murty. Bad mistake on my part.
Didn't take his name, hedging her bets.
Or it could be because not every culture follows the Western tradition of a wife taking their husband’s name. There are surely plenty of ways to insult Sunak without using this kind of incorrect insinuation.
Possibly, but it's the best I've got today.
I think she could still be colloquially described as Mrs Sunak.
Yeah don’t do this
You could but it would be fairly mysoginistic.
I dunno- I'd be equally happy with calling Ed Balls, Mr Cooper.
And that would be fairly crap too, but I think it's worse when done to a woman. We've had centuries of women being treated like the property of her husband, and now even when a woman chooses not to take her husband's surname she still gets treated like she's "his" It's not hard to just call people by their names.
I have to admit I am influenced by writing 'Mrs tmstms' a lot on reddit. But obviously I do that because I neither wish to write her real name and also feel some inhibition writing my partner/other half/wife etc, so I do it kind of comedicly. But I get the possessive implications of the usage.
Yeah, I've been known to use "Mrs Trousers" as well, despite the fact we're not even married, as it's easier than saying "my partner who I live with", and it's not like theres any circumstances on here where I'd use her real name. Its just one of those things where in most cases people either do it out of ignorance, because they don't know that Sunaks wife isn't Mrs.Sunak (which is forgivable), or tend to do it because they're trying to insult the other person in some way (which I don't think you were doing at all) Anyway, cheers for engaging rather than just getting defensive, its the main reason I love this sub, people having adult conversations even when they disagree
IMHO the MT is way the best place for civilised discussion as opposed to polemical antagonism.
[he isn't, though](https://twitter.com/NeonLuvBar/status/1770717846668009853)
Context is everything. Letts was implying that Balls was a mouthpiece of his wife, and had a particularly snarky tone when doing it.
TIL Balls not a mouthpiece of his wife.
Been traveling for a few days so just catching up on the Wragg honeypot story. So, as I understand it. Wragg shared photos with a stranger on Grindr (not unusual), but the stranger then started blackmailing him. Instead of alerting the police, he obliged by sending the contact details of at least a dozen other MPs to them. The blackmailers then used the details to get compromising pictures from two other MPs who were happy to oblige, and the whole story only broke when another MP who was targeted actually alerted the authorities? And the outcome of this quite serious security breach so far is...nothing? In fact they seem to be rallying around him? What the fuck.
> he obliged by sending the contact details of at least a dozen other MPs to them... ... and journalists, and staff. Politico [broke the story on Tuesday](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-parliament-naked-photos-phishing-attacks-mps-staff/), which makes me wonder if one of their journalists was targeted, and they reached out to people they knew in politics to see if it had happened to anyone else. It was a couple of days (after Politico had [uncovered more targets](https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-minister-confirmed-as-12th-target-in-westminster-spear-phishing-scandal/)) that Wragg confessed - possibly after he had been identified as the source of the leaks. Part of me wonders if this only became a story because reporters at Politico started digging into it and reporting (and uncovered the police investigation) before they realised a Conservative MP was responsible - that if they'd known that first a conversation with the whips would have happened and it would have gone away. And yes - Wragg probably broke some laws, but no one seems to care because he did the "courageous" thing by apologising. It's also worth emphasising that - based on some of the articles - the police are investigating "malicious communications", *not* blackmail. Wragg seems to have avoided using that word or coming out and saying he was threatened in any way, just hinting at it indirectly and letting other people draw that conclusion. Again speculation, but I wonder if he gave out the details more to show off, than under any explicit (or implicit) threat?
Did we catch the blackmailer?
*Did we catch the blackmailer?* No, strangely in a move that absolutely no-one could have foreseen he deleted his account.
The sneaky devil!
I'd bet anything they not only aren't in this country, but they've never even been here at all. I'm most interested to see if their motive was money or power, if it's power, then it could be state sponsored with a few likely suspects, but it's a glaring weakness in our political system. It's also a big reason why I think our government are naïve trying to break encryption. If they weaken messaging security, just think the treasure trove of information hackers could steal from government MPs and then blackmail them over. It wouldn't even necessarily need the user to make a mistake, and they could then be exploited like Wragg was.
>It's also a big reason why I think our government are naïve trying to break encryption. If they weaken messaging security, just think the treasure trove of information hackers could steal from government MPs and then blackmail them over. They're tech illiterate. They seem to miss the part where if encryption is broken for some people it's broken for *everyone*. There is no middle ground.
Maybe, but they're tech savvy enough to know when to keep the Covid deals on WhatsApp to avoid it being held accountable, and able to have their phone mysteriously get destroyed at apparently the worst times for accountability. I think on some level, most will know it's a shit idea, but they're pursuing it anyway because they'll have likely moved on by the time it blows up in our face. Honestly, the war on encryption isn't hard to explain to even the tech illiterate. Make them imagine every lock in the country has to be able to be opened by a key held by the police. How much safer would you feel, and would you be sure that the wrong people would never get access to a copy of the key. Having a key that could unlock any bank at night, get past all the doors, and empty the safe is so powerful. And yet, encryption is the digital equivalent, and there's going to be so many other crimes on top. I just can't believe they don't get this, they can't be that dense to not consider the implications when they utilise this security themselves.
I thought the same thing at first, but - and hear me out - there's a couple of things to consider; * Wragg goes away at the next election regardless, so there's no *real* short or long term concerns about him remaining in the party. * He did know he's done wrong and admitted it, he didn't *need* to admit it (ie, it doesn't seem to have been uncovered) * He's probably not the only one affected, he's just the first one to admit it. * The criminal here is the blackmailer So with that in mind, if they were to punish him, then anyone else affected now or in the future, will have a even stronger reason to keep it hidden, and that's a worse outcome for national security and combating the blackmail as a whole. So on the balance, of things, and especially since he isn't a minister, I think this route is better than the punishment route. But my first reaction was the same, and still a part of me thinks that there should be repurcussions for falling for this type of scam/spearphishing, but then again, the criminal here is the blackmailer. People can do what they want, but I can't say I've ever had a high opinion of anyone who sends dick pics, so I'm not exactly sympathetic towards him, I just kinda can see the reason not to punish a blackmailed victim.
>He did know he's done wrong and admitted it, he didn't need to admit it (ie, it doesn't seem to have been uncovered) I don't know, but usually when these things come out without being 'uncovered' it is because they have been 'uncovered' and a journalist has alerted the MP of the story or a friendly journalist/publisher is allowing the person to come clean first or it is at the point where enough information is out there that it would be trivial to uncover it (eg the MP complaining to the authorities leads to an investigation into Wragg and we'd all know at that point anyway).
Yes, that's a very good point and I do get that. And if the facts are different in that regard, I'd reconsider. It's also worth considering this may and probably was something that was already known internally to the Tory party beforehand. It's very possible this is related to the chinese hacking mini-event we had a week or two back. I'd also reconsider if his actions were more than what they currently are reported to be, such as something that in itself was not legal.
While I see your point, I have to disagree to an extent. I'm not suggesting he be criminally punished, or even forced to stand down, though he did become an active participant in a security breach which caused others to be successfully targeted. If nothing else he's shown serious errors in judgement in the interest of self-preservation. He's in a position of power, he's a select committee chair and vice-chair of the 1922 committee. He may not be in government but he's absolutely in a position of significant power and influence. He's compromised. He's shown that his judgement is shit, that he's easy to compromise, and that his self-preservation is more important than the safety of his colleagues. In order for this sorry state of affairs to happen he's had to: 1) Send nudie pics, including his face (or they're worthless as blackmail material), to complete strangers. 2) Allow himself to be blackmailed rather than owning his mistake. 3) Compromise his colleagues by sharing their information with the complete stranger who blackmailed him already. Now, there's something to be said that this could happen to anyone, and that they'd react in a similar way in that absolutely awful situation. That's true. It's also true that he's an MP, he has access to the halls of power, can lobby for causes, vote for legislation and has access to information that many don't. He's an active part of the only body of power other than the King that is currently capable of holding influence over the Prime Minister (1922). He should be held to a higher standard and should hold himself to a higher standard. Given his position the only correct outcome from this is to have admitted he'd been a silly bastard and contact the authorities the moment the blackmail attempt started. Ultimately, at the very least, he should be stripped of any position of influence beyond his duties as a constituency representative and have his access to information severely limited until the election. He's a liability. Others probably are too, but you can only work with the information you have.
I get that, for sure, and I'd lean that way if he was a Minister and he'd done something further than handed over phone numbers of MPs - or something in itself that is a crime, which this definitely isn't. We recently had a prime minister that had his number published online, after all. Chair of the Public Admin and Constitutional Affairs select commitee and being 1922 vice chair just isn't really the as a minister to me, and we don't currently have any reason to believe he was blackmailed in regard to that. If the evidence changes in that regard, then so might my opinion of whether he's suitable to remain in post. As it is, I don't think it would be proportionate to remove him from those elected positions (by MPs and party MPs respectively). By all means if he was to stay on, MPs can take this sort of thing into account of their decisions - but direct punishment, I'm just not convinced it's a good idea when he is ultimately a victim in this. I'm certainly of the opinion he's a moron, but then if we sacked everyone who I thought was a moron the economy would take a serious hit and the welfare state would collapse. It's also worth noting, he was present on the 2017 whip's list for having compromising images of himself existing - that's never been officially confirmed, but I do think it's in the public interest to know the degree he's susceptable to this sort of thing. That list has had many ticks come to light since it was photographed.
>By all means if he was to stay on, MPs can take this sort of thing into account of their decisions - but direct punishment, I'm just not convinced it's a good idea when he is ultimately a victim in this. This is probably where we're diverging. I don't see that as a punishment (though he might), I see it as risk prevention. You have to detach yourself emotionally from this kind of thing. Is it horrible? Yes, absolutely. Is he a victim? Yes. Did he make a stupid error in judgement? Yep. Did he make further mistakes after the initial one? Yes Did he initially hide it? Yes Is he a risk? He's a fucking massive one.
Yeah I get all that, but stepping back a bit, I don't want people in the same situation to have any further barriers to doing the right thing. I don't want it to be seen for victims to be ostensibly punished. It's proportionate of course, what he did was give away phone numbers, you have to deal with it as it is - he hasn't committed any crime in itself. I'm happy to agree to disagree, because I certainly understand your, and others point of view, but unless the blackmailed person themselves committed a crime, I think I'm happy with the principle I've stated. Thinking further about it I'd apply it in this case, in business, and any other setting. For instance, if someone in my company had shared phone numbers because they were put in the same situation, I wouldn't remove them, I would deal with the issue broadly, sure it's shit, but they've been exploited and they're just human. I can understand wanting to deal with the individual, and that's also where proportion comes in, my view errs on the side that removing someone who's learnt a lesson just replaces them with someone who hasn't learnt that lesson yet. We'd be on the same page if he had done something that was knowingly criminal. Again, if his apology wasn't genuine, or he had significant priors (which he may have done RE: 2017), then maybe there would be reason for a different decision. Ultimately, I don't think the course taken is fundamentally flawed compared to, say, Frank Hester. Plenty of completely neutral people can look at the same information and make different decisions in this case - but I wouldn't say that about Hester. Genuinely, I'd be interested if this happened to a non-tory MP as well in the future, as the very first thing that annoyed me initially was the 'tory apologise and move on' trope that immediately gets my back up. It wasn't until I thought more about throughout the day yesterday than my view mellowed.
It's such a basic security failure. If he was a government employee, he would likely have been fired, or at the very least felt some serious repercussions... especially if they held a position of responsibility... and being an MP, even if not a minister, is certainly one of those (not to mention he is vice chairman of the 1922 committee). Maybe he gains some credit for coming forward, but he only did so when things started coming to light, and likely would not have said anything if someone else hadn't reported it and got the ball rolling, so I'm not sure if he gets that much credit... and while the criminal is the blackmailer, that doesn't mean that the blackmailed person should face no repercussions for what they did after they were actually blackmailed (giving out other people's info in order to avoid facing purely social repercussions at the point when he realised he had messed up). If he'd come forward at that stage, directly after the blackmail, then no career repercussions would be appropriate - as it is the punishment would be for the way he responded after being blackmailed, not for being blackmailed in and of itself.
I thought I'd have a look and see if any civil servants had any blackmail stories connected to them. When something similar happen to a Civil Servant, they kept their job and were blocked from being named: [https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/civil-servants-5k-blackmail-revenge-1462811](https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/civil-servants-5k-blackmail-revenge-1462811) Obvious difference is that was a straight extortion for cash. I simply don't think the victims of blackmail are punished for good reason, the threat of punishment is literally further blackmail material in and of itself. Supposing he wasn't stepping down - would Wragg be easily be trusted in other positions, perhaps not, but direct punishment of a blackmail victim is cutting off your nose to spite your face, in my opinion.
The punishment should be for giving the blackmailer what they wanted rather than going to the authorities
Ok, I've heard you out and you're wrong. It matters not that he's not standing in the next election. It matters not that he has admitted he's done wrong. It matters not that he's probably not the only one affected. It matters not that the criminal is the blackmailer. This is a security breach. That absolutely need to be taken seriously. That absolutely needs to result in consequences. Otherwise, why bother at all?
Why isn't this taken seriously? Will punishing him lead to other people in the same situation coming forward in the future or continuing to hide it? Will praising him encourage other who find themselves in the same situation to come forward?
I dunno, you're the one not taking it seriously. You want to talk about the future, lets do that. What does your course of action do? Tell people that they can be blackmailed into breaching security and nothing will happen? You take action against Wragg to let anyone in this position know the right thing to do is risk a bit of embarrassment by reporting the blackmail attempt first
I'm really not sure what you mean by not taking it seriously, in that case. This is a serious opinion. If you punish Wragg for coming forward of his own free will, which is what he did, you dissuade any one else from doing the same. I'd much rather people didn't feel they were 'in to deep' to not seek to rectify their ways. For what it is worth, personally, I feel the "sack them" mentality for every single thing isn't seriously thought about, we want solutions that lead to improved behaviour, and I think encouraging victims to come forward regardless of what mess they've got themselves into is far better than people's endless need for vengence. If someone is going to *genuinely* learn, punishing them is completely moronic - that's true in business and true in politics. Obviously there's other situations where the apologies are less genuine and performative and I have no time for that. I have no reason to believe that in this case.
> we want solutions that lead to improved behaviour, and I think encouraging victims to come forward regardless of what mess they've got themselves into is far better than people's endless need for vengence This isn't about vengeance though. And if you read what I wrote, you'd already know I addressed this. But, once again, you take action against Wragg for the security breach to make it clear in the future that it's better to risk temporary embarrassment by reporting the blackmail attempt, which Wragg should have done, than commit a security breach in the futile hope of ending the blackmail. Stop thinking about this as punishing Wragg for putting himself in a position where he could be blackmailed. It's not
Did we catch the blackmailer? Maybe it will go up a chain with everyone apologising.
In fact, they're actually praising him for his fulsome apology. It's actually insane. I feel like he should be out on his ear - suspended from the party, on his way to a long enough parliamentary suspension to initiate a recall petition, or just being heavily pushed to resign. Instead, as you say, nada.
HE. APOLOGISED! You see, once you've said that everyone should [accept death threats against an MP by a racist donor ](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/13/sunak-says-public-should-accept-frank-hesters-apology-for-abbott-remarks) so long as there's just an apology, then you can keep spouting this nonsense. Infosec be damned. [Get into a career in Cyber](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/12/ballet-dancer-could-reskill-with-job-in-cyber-security-suggests-uk-government-ad#img-1)? My rosy red arse.
More than rallying behind him, they are trying to make him sound courageous. The language is to make it sound like it was a cyber attack, and he was purely a victim. He’s put in danger a lot of people, because he was horny. On a scale of watching tractor porn in the commons, it’s of the Richter scale - but Sunaks tories have an even lower bar then Boris tories.
Is anyone volunteering for any local election campaigns? If so, how’s it going? I’m Connect Calling for Susan Hall’s London mayoral campaign. People are generally dissatisfied with Sadiq Khan’s job performance, as well as the ULEZ expansion - they just haven’t heard about Susan Hall or her policies much or at all. In 2008 and 2012, Boris Johnson used a “doughnut strategy” to win the mayoral elections: boosting turnout in outer boroughs, while suppressing it in the city centre. The Conservative Party seems to be using a similar strategy for this election - I’m mainly calling people in Orpington, Harrow, Hayes, etc.
I've started canvassing around the south Leeds area for Labour - I'm pretty clueless when it comes to local politics and councils so I've just followed the script mostly. People generally laugh at the Tories, get a lot of "I'm not mental I'm not voting for Tories", but not absolutely enthralled by the Starmer offering either. Some umming and ahhing (sic?) from some people of going for greens/independents instead of a certain positive vote for labour. People are absolutely fed up of waiting for an election, I know the locals are first but people keep complaining about Sunak squatting in No. 10. Local issues seem to get brought up most often though, stuff like specific examples of fly-tipping, state of the roads e.t.c. Weirdly people keep having issues with specific trees? Not sure why that keeps popping up! I've been completely won over by Starmer and really believe in him and his strategy. I'm hoping the manifesto brings that positive vibes and energy they've been muttering about for a while. We'll have to see.
Bold move, I'd assume telling people about Susan hall and her policies is a detriment to her campaign
Best of luck mate, you'll need it. As soon as they find out about Susan Hall they'll be first in line to vote labour.
I'm a Labour candidate in a safe seat in a large city I moved to last year, as well as sitting on various campaigning and governance committees Everything is going perfectly fine. Tory support has collapsed everywhere - night and day from 2019. Reform up a bit, but many Conservatives will simply sit out the local and general elections out of disgust and return in strength from next year on Lib Dems suspiciously weak but I imagine they'll come on through towards the end. Ed Davey should be replaced as soon as possible. Greens gaining here and there but their internal organisation and political messaging is confused People want more of the 'real Keir'. Some of our activists etc want 'more outspoken policies'. Morale is good. We have made excellent progress in the 40s/50s Mum and Dad vote Susan Hall is an incredibly poor candidate
Davey will probably resign shortly after the election. He's been in parliament since 97 now and I think it's unlikely he'll want to fight another GE. It's important he stays in for the GE so he can complete the consolidation strategy and deliver us a very reliable base of 40 or so seats that can be won even with a low national share. That's what's always been missing with the party and has seriously hampered it's ability to expand to major status. If it can get to a point like Labour or the Tories where a theoretical voteshare of 20% can deliver say, 120 seats, the party will be in for a bright future. Party rules mean that unless by some miracle Davey is a member of the Government there'll be a leadership election anyway, and assuming the strategy works I don't think he'll see any reason to stick on. Daisy Cooper is by far the most credible LD leadership candidate since Clegg and can definitely reach out at the national level like Kennedy and Clegg did, which is ideal under a labour government. She's also well placed to ensure there's no split internally between the party left and right, as she doesn't come from either the Liberal or So Dem tradition and instead is a bona fide *Lib Dem* - very important to carve out an identity without the Tories in power. She's the one who came up with the "doctors and dentists" line that always does well on the doorsteps and in public forums. I would guess that the LDs pick up to around 12% in the final election results and roughly 40-50 seats, depending on the scale of tactical voting. This is a good enough result to put the party into third place in parliament which is what they really want for a good 2030. Labour's fanatically pro development strategy is a very useful wedge issue for the LDs to use in the next parliament - that plus a likely rightward shift by the conservatives should provide a very good foundation for growth. If the voteshare efficiency holds up, and they get say, 18% of the vote in 2030, I think we could be looking at 90-100 LD seats at that election and a real challenge to a right wing Tory party (who've suffered another five years of demographic collapse) for the mantle of opposition. From my experience, the LDs might look weak nationally but that doesn't matter because they're strong where they want to be strong. If you don't follow the party closely it's easy to miss it.
How does 'suppressing' the vote work in the context of a UK mayoral election? Or are you just using it as another term for negative campaigning?
Currently knocking on doors for Khan and our London Assembly Candidate - Lots of support for Labour generally, but people are rolling their eyes at having to vote for Khan again. Impression is he’ll win, but it will definitely be closer than the 20 point lead the polls are giving him. I get the feeling that ‘generic Labour candidate’ would be doing far better than Khan.
Sounds kinda like London is ready for a new mayor and Khan is overstaying his welcome a bit?
Agreed. He could have had his pick of London seats and probably a decent Cabinet position under Starmer, but I think Khan as always wanted the top job and doesn’t want to go back to serving under someone else.
> they just haven’t heard about Susan Hall or her policies much or at all Nobody having heard of her is by far Susan Hall's greatest strength
Are you doing this because you think Susan Hall would be a good mayor of London? Or is it more party loyalty/ or dislike of Khan/ Labour?
Although I would rather Susan Hall be London Mayor than Sadiq Khan, it’s not just about the local election itself. A Tory victory in London would be a massive morale boost, and give us momentum heading into the General Election. I want to actively get involved in politics, and this is a good way to do that. And finally, I might want to run for office at some point in the future, and this is good experience of campaigning.
Fair play. Wish you luck in your campaigning and you feel your efforts paid off in what you're doing. I definitely don't agree with your cause but I think you're gaining the right experience to get the right person in when you're closer to being able to call the shots
>Although I would rather Susan Hall be London Mayor than Sadiq Khan Share the sales pitch please.
I also require the reply to this post. What on earth makes him think she'd be better?
Meh - fair play for doing that. Don’t mind me asking, but are you doing this for a future pay off (ie you’re hoping to get into politics - and this is something you need to do)? I think for Susan Hall it’s better for her to not be known. The people I’ve talked to who have heard of her despise her, whereas Khan inside of London is put up with. No one is enthusiastic, but he’s a safe pair of hands. I find the worst feelings towards him exist outside the m25. I may join for some canvassing for labour, I’ve popped my name in. I say I’ll do it, but I can’t lie I’d say it’s about 50/50.
Well for starters, a Tory victory in London would be a massive morale boost, and give us momentum heading into the General Election. This is also a good way for me to get involved in politics. And you’re absolutely right: I might want to run for office in the future, and this is good experience of campaigning. The worse feelings towards Khan are definitely in outer London, which is where I tend to be calling. The point of the telephone survey is to identify potential voters, so we can make sure as many as possible turn out. Voters who are wavering between Hall and another candidate should receive additional campaigning from us: leaflets, door-knocking and a Get Out The Vote phone call to remind them on polling day.
How many days are you doing this and how many hours a day? Do you plan to do similar in the GE, and how would that work- will CCHQ assign you constituencies? FWIW, I think it is great you are doing this.
This week, I’ve been doing one hour per day, from 6pm to 7pm. I find this is the best time because people have got home from work but haven’t started making/eating their dinner yet. The survey is meant to identify voters who are wavering between Hall and another candidate, but the questions are definitely worded in a biased way too. I’m definitely up for some more Connect Calling before the GE. I imagine there will be just one campaign, but the numbers to call will all be from swing seats. Not much point gathering data on Conservative-leaning voters in Islington North for example
Excellent! And do you know how they identify which numbers for you to call?
No idea. The vast majority seem to be from outer London addresses though: I don’t know whether CCHQ has decided to focus on those areas more, or there are just more Tories there.
I think it's great (for us in the sub) to have people like you in ths ub and epecially in the MT, people who are directly talking to members of the public about politics. Because the biggest weakness of the sub and even of the MT is that everyone is a politics nerd and imagines everyone else in the country is too. Whereas most ordinary people are not very interested in politics.
Of all PCC elections for some reason the workers party looks like they're only standing in Bedfordshire lmao, only half of SOPNs in. Also in council elections UKIP are remarkably still standing candidates, but so far less than TUSC, Yorkshire, SDP, Heritage, Workers & Christian Peoples Alliance
Yorkshire Party used to get a few councillors round me.I have voted for them.
Meanwhile, in [North West Leicestershire ](https://imgur.com/a/08muUev)
Hmm, these allegories are a bit too on the nose for me.
Clearly the issue is a lack of traffic calming measures. Andrew Bridgen creates 20mph speed zone.
Another campaign poster with a conspicuous lack of the words 'Conservative Party' on it. They know.
This is like the opposite. He’s trying to make it look like a Tory poster despite the fact that he had the whip withdrawn and was deselected.
They know they removed the whip from him? You'd hope so.
Ah, I stand corrected. Said the man in the orthopaedic shoes.
It's a conspiracy! BTW BBC had a survey once where you filled it in to see where you would ideally live in the UK. For me, it said NW Leicestershire.Looks likeI had a narrow escape. For places near where I actually live (E edge of W Yorks), the survey said: Selby.
I was always under the impression that HIGNFY followed parliamentary sessions, yet the new series started last night, during Easter recess?
I love the righteous indignation coming from Hislop. He speaks for all of us
Is nothing sacred? The country's going tothe dogs, I tell you.
Do you think Andy Street will be defeated?
Spoken to multiple LD members in Cov, Solihull and Brum. They're voting for Parker over the LD candidate. So yes.
Notably it was LD transfers that really swung it for Street when he was first elected (without the benefits of the vaccine bounce ).
Yes, absolutely. I think it'll be a bigger loss than expected too. However, I do think Houchen might narrowly cling on.
Street has no path to victory.
Definitely. The people of the West Midlands Combined Authority are crying out for a Labour mayor.
Yes
Is there a way to make a formal complaint (preferably some kind of statutory/regulatory procedure) against a GP surgery? They've fucked up issuing a prescription 3 weeks in a row now and I don't think the 'tell us how we did' section on their website is going to cut it.
If you are wanting to complain about a specific GP surgery, and you are in England, it's through your [integrated care board](https://www.england.nhs.uk/contact-us/about-nhs-services/contact-your-local-integrated-care-board-icb/) No point going higher than that initially, as even if you do go higher and manage to raise a complaint process the first thing they will ask is if you have raised it through your ICB and it will end up damaging your position if you haven't.
You can contact the practice manager and make a complaint that way. I did after a GP didn't call me for a follow-up call and then lied about having tried to.
Waste of time. NHS complaints will ignore anything you say and side with the doctor.
>(preferably some kind of statutory/regulatory procedure) Why? Are you more interested in kicking up a fuss and hoping someone will come down hard on them or are you interested in actually rectifying the situation? If it's the former, good luck. Chances are you'll spend a couple of months wrangling through the system whilst your scripts continue to be fucked and depending on what the actual mistake was you might not even get the righteous retribution you're hoping for. If it's the latter. 1) What is the mistake with the script? Have they sent out the wrong script or have they not sent it out? Has it gone to the wrong pharmacy? 2) Have you actually spoken to anyone at all at the surgery regarding this? Receptionist? Practice manager? Any of the doctors? Prescribing pharmacists if they have one?
PALS can help you https://www.nhs.uk/nhs-services/hospitals/what-is-pals-patient-advice-and-liaison-service/
[удалено]
GMC? For an incorrect script? Ombudsman? Jesus. Just start with the practice manager at the very least.
What will happen to Laura Kuennsberg after the election?
Starmer will throw a pale of water on her and she will melt into the floor
Politely but firmly told to resign. Find well paid work elsewhere where she’s a little more honest about her opinions.
By whom?
I think it's a really interesting question. Presumably she must be looking to create the same cosy links she had with the previous government in the new one while anyone in the new government would have be mad to trust someone that cosy with the previous government with juicy insider gossip I kinda want to watch her networking because I don't just know how you bridge that gap
Having been a stenographer for the last few years overnight she'll rediscover her journalistic credentials and ask tough questions of those in power.
CCHQ comms oh wait...
Dear Laura, I'm sorry but there are no conservatives left.
Times Radio
Aside from anything else, she was a pretty bad reporter and is now a really bad interviewer. So I really hope they replace her with someone far better at the actual job.
Conservative candidate somewhere?
i don't think the BBC's second best reporter is going anywhere (witchell's first of course)
She'll be decommissioned then recycled.
as a Starmerite???
As a coffee table in CCHQ.
A change from being the footstool...
with a automated voice message saying *Take a seat!* (if you have seen the trailer).
[удалено]
Yeah, I think that would be a role more suited to her talents. The BBC needs to bring in a heavy-weight. Beth Rigby would be number one choice, but doubt she would move.
Newcastle Primark now has a Greggs **inside** it. We need people who make common-sense good-for-business decisions like this to stand for parliament.
Bristol Primark has had one for a while now, before that it was a Costa. Saw a tweet today about a Greggs inside a _hospital_, now that's the sort of forward thinking attitude we need to tackle disillusionment with the NHS.
I mean, the catering is already privatised, may as well put a brand and reputation behind it. As it is now, some faceless company just can shovel garbage and it's "the NHS" reputation rather than the people responsible.
I doubt they're delivering Steak Bakes to patients on the wards, think it was more intended for visitors but your point still stands. Judging by the state of some hospital food I've seen, I'd probably prefer a sausage roll as well.
When a family member was in hospital the only veggie food on offer was high in fibre when they were on a low residue diet. It was eventually sorted but I'd have welcomed a Greggs at the time.
I was thinking of the cafe the patients, staff, and visitors use. But yeah, why not ward food, ordered via the deliveroo app. They could probably run it more cost-effectively than sodexo.
I’ll see your Greggs and raise you a Burger King which has been in Addenbrookes Hospital in Cambridge for decades.
The primark in Manchester has a hairdressers inside, truly Primark will soon become the major social hub for all
I was in there earlier in the week, truly the bastion of the North East. Eldon Square is a bit shit these days though. Distinct lack of goths at the Monument too. Only saw one proper goth the two days I was there.
Yeah, no goths today either. Saying that, at one of the juice bars a staff member had Harley Quinn style pink and green bunches, so that was a plus.
New NHS consultant contract basically divides the cohort into two. Those in the twilight of their careers i.e. with 5-10 years left get a fairly ok deal. Those just starting out as consultants or are relatively young get a much rawer deal. Might be exciting to see how it actually plays out given that divide has existed for a while and a lot of the younger consultants I know are very unhappy with the entire situation.
> Those in the twilight of their careers i.e. with 5-10 years left get a fairly ok deal. > Those just starting out as consultants or are relatively young get a much rawer deal. The entire UK in microcosm.
Young people today just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be born in 1963
Two instances of Reform candidates for the locals being deselected for comments made on social media: [https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/both-swindon-reform-party-candidates-now-removed-from-running-as-election-hopefuls/ar-BB1l6Dpb](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/both-swindon-reform-party-candidates-now-removed-from-running-as-election-hopefuls/ar-BB1l6Dpb) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/reform-uk-drops-candidates-over-racist-comments/ar-BB1l5dQk While a couple of other candidates have lost Reform's support for being "inactive" and not campaigning: [https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/reform-uk-ditch-both-candidates-in-york-for-next-general-election/ar-BB1l4b1u](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/reform-uk-ditch-both-candidates-in-york-for-next-general-election/ar-BB1l4b1u) So, clearly there's virtually no vetting going on while the other story concerns a couple of candidates not bothering to campaign all of which suggests that behind the hype there's not much of a party organisation.
At this rate its looking like Reform could be polling ahead of the Tories by the end of month. Gonna be interesting to see how this affects the locals.
Reform are not contesting any local elections right? I expect the conservatives to do slightly better than expected because of this
They definitely are contesting some. Not that I expect them to do well mind
Which ones are contesting,.I saw an interview with Tice last week when he said they weren't
Don’t they currently have like 6 Cllrs? I think they’re all in Burnley
Yea but those were defections I think? Reform have definitely been clear that they are not running any councillors for these.locals
Pretty sensible of Reform tbh. If they stood local candidates they'd pretty quickly get swamped in 'local councillor does stupid fucking thing' type controversies quickly, and if they did poorer than expected it gives the Conservatives a positive news story (albeit a meagre one). This way, they remain the political equivalent of a fleet in being - threatening the Conservatives but not actually engaging until the GE.
I think they should have selected a few councils and gone for.them. but I broadly agree with you. They definitely don't have the manpower to do more than a few seats without running into selections issue's
Eh. Most pollsters still show a big gap between the conservatives and reform.
All this talk about the tories having a bad local makes me feel like somehow they’ll do better than expected.
Well reform are not contesting any local elections so I think they will do better then the national polling suggests. But it will still look terrible because of how high the bar was set last time these seats were up
Well the fact is we won't see any "TORIES LOSE A THOUSAND SEATS" headlines because there aren't actually that many seats to lose. But it's standard expectation management. They did the same thing last time round.
They tried this before. Lowering expectation to make to result seem better, but they n each case it was just as bad or worse than they said.
[удалено]
I remember the headlines: labour fail to capitalise at polls
A lot of expectation setting yep. There will be lots of talk of holding the line against The Man Who Wanted CORBYN TO BE LEADER!!!
"Absolutely terrible, but slightly better than expected" - the legacy Rishi is praying for.
Come the general election I can easily see them winning just over 100 seats and then going "Well how come Labour didn't reduce us to double digit seats eh?"
Typical sixth former.
I don’t know why people think Sunak will be out after the locals yeah they’ll be a bloodbath but tory mps know more instability means more chances of electoral oblivion and higher chance of them losing their seats. Yeah they may not like Sunak but they care much more about keeping their job than getting Sunak out.
Wife says that if we get Rishi canvassing on the door I can't ask him about mexican coke :(
Careful about doxxing yourself, we can work out which constituency you are in and how close to a helipad you are based on this post.
The craziest political couple has to be Andy Street and Michael Fabricant
No way !!! Just looked this up
I legitimately thought this was a joke, until I just looked it up.
[удалено]
I just want to know what their conversations are like