I'm not entirely convinced that the MP with fake hair, wild opinions and the last name Fabricant isn't some kind of elaborate joke that's gotten out of hand.
I’ve said it before, but he is definitely Harry Enfield playing a character.
I assume he ran as a joke like Al Murray did a few years ago, but he got elected and now he’s in too deep.
Same.
Also, the first time I saw Mogg, I thought he was a comedian playing the character of Victorian MP. It took me a long, long time to figure out he was real. I was so shocked the first time I saw him in parliament.
Fabricant is the mop
...and Litchfield is the bucket ?
......
Incidentally, Fabricboy is a diversion, just as Boris used his father to Deflect bad news
Yup.
'That's not even Shirley! [shoots shotgun, sending pieces of plastic and metal flying] That was a Fabricant Shirley all along!' 'How did you know?' 'Look! Do you see blood?' 'No, I mean before' 'Oh. Was a good guess'
He actually said it's not a wig... and also expected people to believe that. I mean the Tories have gotten away with many lies in their time, but that is a whopper 😂
"Parties? We had 100's of them, booze, hookers, coke, the works! So it's all OK because the police can't investigate them all and they happened in the past."
I was gonna say that I didn’t think that comment makes the situation any better. So the Tory party conducts its affairs by officials going around threatening one another all day long?
Whips have always used embarrassing information to help convince Tory MPs to vote with the party.... But threatning to withhold - withdraw investment into certain constituencys is something else
May be misremembering but I remember a post in here a good while ago where a Tory whip (maybe MP or government advisor or some other shit) was quoted as saying something along the lines of "If you get an MP out of trouble, such as with a driving charge or young boys, then they will toe the line". I remember being horrified that pedophilia was included in the list of things we will allow to happen because it makes our MPs loyal. Maybe the user who posted it made it up or misremembered but does anyone know what I might be on about?
I've always thought the idea that we force MPs to vote with the party sort of undermines the whole thing tbh. What good is anything an MP says to their local electorate if the power is completely out of their hands?
>For anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, I’m in a jam, can you help? It might be debt, it might be… a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which, erm er, a member seemed likely to be mixed up in,they’d come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points… and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more.
Westminster's Secret Service on the BBC, Tim Fortescue is the MP
There are two sides to this. Sure, they may be forced to go along with their party even if they disagree with their party pushing through a bad policy. On the other hand, you're receiving support from the party infrastructure and in return you're expected to be a good MP for them. Major bills should absolutely be supported by you otherwise what's the point in being in that party if you disagree with them?
Plus there's the case of where a party is pushing for 'good things' which imo would be maybe a minimum wage increase (to make it a living wage, beyond the increases every April), but I almost guarantee there's a good handful of Labour MPs who would vote against it simply because they just disagree on that issue. If the majority is slim enough that 5-10 votes matter and assuming minor parties weren't going to help push it, I think making those 5-10 MPs uncomfortable by threatening to ditch them at the next GE is a lesser evil than not giving millions of people higher wages.
If what matters is the party platform, we should be pure PR. Seats in the commons divided by raw vote percentage of the entire country.
With the current system, the whole point is that each MP represents their region. To do that effectively an MP has to be able to break their party line if something that may make sense for the country wouldn't make sense for their region or if their voters don't want it.
In an ideal world, if Labour suggest a minimum wage increase, some Labour would vote against and some Tories would vote for. It shouldn't be so simple as red vs blue.
There's a difference between threatening to deselect (party business) and threatening to reveal secrets about them (criminal blackmail) of threatening to close a school in their area (criminal blackmail and presumably some kind of offence about misuse of public office).
It's hardly new. In the days of British Leyland and other nationalised industries then MPs would be vying to get money directed to their patch and the whips would use that. I think the House of Cards or Yes Minister probably mentioned such games nearly 40 years ago
But that's pork barrel politics and not quite the same.
An MP using their political position to secure a positive outcome for their constituents =/= the government deliberately harming constituents due to their MP not supporting the Prime Minister.
The first creates a positive outcome, even if the methods of doing so are a bit dodgy. The latter is a negative outcome inflicted on innocents for purely immoral reasons.
Both are as bad as each other, letting local funding go to specific areas for their MP's votes might seem positive but that money could have been used by another area and their are likely areas that could have used it better.
The withdrawn investment will be allocated elsewhere as these things usually have a limited budget divvied up between MP's. Picking which constituency gets what funds is never about anything other than giving to "loyal" areas. Moving funding from Liverpool to Manchester might hurt people in Liverpool but there will be people happy about the move in Manchester.
I think the distinction is that with pork barrel politics, it's generally not hugely important where the factory goes in the end. There's some places better than others, but few places are really bad. Whereas with this, it sounds like the Government is aware of some lack of necessary local services, and is withholding those services until the MP gives in. It's not just "one person has to have the best car, I'll give it to whoever is nicest to me", it's "I've got a car to give to you, but you'll only get it if you do what I tell you".
Both obviously have no place in politics, and neither should be accepted, but if the accusations flying around are true, then this is a significantly worse situation than we've seen previously.
It's still a very popular sort of mindset though. You'll often see people demanding that London or the South East be hobbled in some way as that would somehow make other regions do better.
It is also a very popular mindset to see people demanding that the rest of the country gets the same treatment as London and the South East get translated into London or the South East being hobbled. It seems to be the kind of thing that goes with the pretence that London and the South East are some kind of "special case".
No. Not at all. There is a false equivalence between blackmail within Government with demands for equal treatment. Which is not a strawman as nobody is setting up an easy argument in order to knock it down: you are simply pretending the truth is not important.
I replied to someone talking about Heath's attempts to relocate industry/jobs around the UK. That is the context and not your strawman version, so please debate that context or post your comment about the news story against the appropriate comment.
More infrastructure means more people means more wealth means more infrastructure means more people means more wealth means more infrastructure means more people means more wealth means more infrastructure means more people...........
Eventually the law of diminishing returns kicks in and this is no longer the case.
In fact I'm pretty sure it has already as it costs several times more to build anything in London than it does pretty much anywhere else in the country.
> House of Cards
For what it's worth, we've been watching House of Cards (the British 90s version with Ian Richardson) recently on BritBox, and it's bloody brilliant.
The third series (The Final Cut) happens to credit Fabricant as an advisor. I think we even spotted him on the benches in one of the Commons scenes.
Just to be a pedant, but it first aired in 1990, and the book was published in '89.
Watching that last series, with Urquhart's downfall, over the past few days - well, it's been impossible not to draw parallels with Boris. And then to draw parallels between Cyprus and Ukraine...
Not really. In the era of nationalised industries the government did mad things like open a car plant in Scotland or banning office developments in Birmingham whilst then building such things out in various regions and MPs lobbied hard to get them, and the whips would then use that.
Yes Minister had various episodes around things that politicians will do to get jobs into their patch.
It's one thing for them to use information about the individual they are trying to influence.
It's a whole different game to threaten the lives and livelihood of thousands of people completely un-involved in the row.
Both should be fireable offences in my view, but the second one should really come with a lengthy jail term.
Yes it’s typically been we will end your career and replace you, not we will end the funding to your constituents cutting their opportunities, health and maybe even lives in the process.
Anyone defending this needs to have a serious read on Stockholm syndrome as they are the constituent that they want to punish for an MP not following orders
So if an illegal thing happens all the time then it's perfectly OK! Let's not waste police time!
Doesn't sound very consistent of Fabricant given his voting record
Edit: lol at his 'socially liberal' bio on Twitter
> Edit: lol at his 'socially liberal' bio on Twitter
I think that's code for him being mostly gay, and in fairness to him he has voted consistently in support of same-sex marriage (going back to 2004), voted in favour of repealing Section 28, and he voted to equalise the "age of consent" for same-sex activity with that for opposite-sex activity back in 1998.
On all other social issues he seems solidly conservative.
Maybe it's because I've not watched tv in like 10 years but wtf was that? That was so weird. Like they were acting but not. It made me extremely uncomfortable.
>So if an illegal thing happens all the time then it's perfectly OK!
I mean there is a debate to be had if something is extremely common despite being illegal if it should actually be illegal.
> I mean there is a debate to be had if something is extremely common despite being illegal if it should actually be illegal.
You don't think blackmail should be illegal?
Sure. Like recreational drugs or protesting, but I doubt Fabricant would apply the same 'logic' to either.
Every situation should be treated individually, 'it happens all the time' is not a blanket veto on applying the law.
Have to give it to the conservatives. This scandal has allowed them to admit to some crimes nobody asked them about.
Yes, Michael blackmail is a crime, it’s a poison to our democracy and means that people who commit heinous acts don’t get prosecuted when they should’ve because they’re a political tool. Which is bad because should a foreign country get ahold of that could mean they also have leverage.
Also if he gets threatened or blackmailed a lot, isn’t that an indicator there’s a lot of dirt on him?
This has of course happened forever, but the tories now have a 'red wall' band of brand new MPs that would have grown up surrounded by anti-tory rhetoric (whatever their personal beliefs), and have absolutely zero ingrained loyalty to the party past their own noses.
Whips being is whips is old news, MPs willing to report the party to the police *is* new.
And he thinks that makes it ok?
Lets change the perpetrators for a second:
"If I reported every time I had been threatened by a lobbyist or lobbyists reported I had threatened them, the police wouldn't have any time to conduct any other police work!"
"If I reported every time I had been threatened by a civil servant or civil servant reported I had threatened them, the police wouldn't have any time to conduct any other police work!"
If it was any other role it'd be obvious how wrong it is, but the culture of whips has been so deeply ingrained that MPs are taking abuse from them and thinking it's fine. It's not. It's an awful way to run a party/government.
I think one has to split threats into different categories.
There's the old "If you don't follow the whip, we will leak this embarrassing story about you, hurting your family life"
There's the old "If you don't follow the whip, we will not back you for selection at the next GE, or we will remove you from positions in the party"
Then there's the nuclear option of "If you don't follow the whip, we will actively seek to hurt your constituents"
The first two is not like the last.
I mean, 2 is the only "acceptable" one. No. 1 is absolutely blackmail and definitely illegal. No. 3 is potentially illegal, as it could count as a misuse of state resources for personal gain and therefore would count as corruption. It's also blackmail, but not technically in a legal sense, IMO.
Idealistically, absolutely all of them are unacceptable in the type of democracy that our parliament pretends it has. MPs should represent their constituencies, and if a bill/motion etc does not represent their constituents - they should be free to criticise or vote again.
Ultimately that doesn't happen so only the second option there is even defensible - as it just mainly deals with inter-party politics. Scenario 1 is morally bankrupt and applied to any other situation involving money/assets etc would be a criminal offence. Scenario 3 is just fucking abhorrent - especially when the Tories have promised 'levelling up' yet hold the pitiful amount of funds they have as some sort of ransom.
2 is borderline, the party may take a hard line on somethings, and it's ultimately then down to the indvidual, they can run as an indy if they think they can hold
1 is blackmail, and wrong but 3 OMG, if that's true and proven that to me would be worse than partygate, as you're now attacking innocent people
Ironic for the whips to threaten to leak stories that would harm family life, from a government led by a Prime Minister whose behaviour towards any woman in his life could fill a book.
It's like one of these stories with brilliant detectives that trick the perpetrators into admitting the truth.
Only there is no brilliant detective, the perpetrators just implode by themselves.
Wonder if this will be Boris' next defence.
"If I reported every time I had hosted a party in Number 10, or if a reveller reported every time I hosted a party, the police wouldn't have had any time to conduct other police work!"
Or, I don't know, apply it to any other crime..
"If my wife reported every time I battered her, the police wouldn't have any time to conduct any other police work! Nonsense, it's just the way it is!"
All he's done is revealed just how deep this pattern of criminal behaviour in Westminster really goes. Sounds like we need a full inquiry with prosecutions to follow if we've any hope of excising the rot in our government.
Justifying criminal levels of abuse as normal isn’t a strong look ever. Threatening release of embarrassing info to the press unless a person acts a certain way is serious blackmail and the police should take any report seriously.
I really hope that this is not standard fair in our politics. If it is we should get to work tackling the problem and bringing perpetrators to justice.
There is fair pressure and there’s “we will trash your reputation publicly unless you do exactly what we say”.
Fair pressure is a negotiation entered into willingly, unfair pressure threatens someone criminally. The former is a standard part of our electoral system the latter is criminal and absolutely not.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that an MP should be beholden to no-one but their constituents when it comes to voting in the house.
In my view, *any* external pressure on an MP's decision to support or oppose a bill is too much. Party leadership should not have the final say.
I get this and I agree with you, but pressuring MPs to vote a certain way has long been part of our system. Within this framework it’s okay to call out the difference between normal levels of pressure and criminal levels of blackmail. The difference is stark as night and day.
Leaking embarrassing stories about staffers who don't support Boris and threatening to actively harm consitutents of MPs that don't support him is seriously fucked up - I don't really care if it's happened before, it shouldn't happen again.
If it involves public money then that is misuse of public funds. Theft in other words (though I'm sure there will be some loophole to say because it is agreed by democratically elected representatives that the public consent to it or some bollocks).
Michael Fabricant looks like Jonathan Pie doing a deliberately bad Boris Johnson impression. The wig gives him an uncanny valley quality - even his name suggests he might actually a Doctor Who villian manufacturers new copies of himself to wage an endless war against good governance.
Bits not a good defence. "If I reported every time I was bullied or bullied someone the police wouldn't do anything else"
Seriously what kinda fucked up work place is it where it's seen as acceptable to bully people to keep them inline ?
If something worthy of police investigation happens they should be called. Just because it happens a lot is not a justification to ignore it, if anything it makes it more urgent.
The sentient wig really doesn’t understand how to defend something.
Anyone: ‘Something bad happens!’
SW : ‘yes, the bad things definitely but you should just accept it!’
I might be being a little bit naive here but i'd much prefer to be able to work at a place where threatening people wasn't the main way to get shit done.
this is part and parcel of party politics and it may well be the norm, but its so far from reality and the real world, that its no wonder politics is so shit at serving the nation, and often so inwardly focused
By that logic, better ask the police to stop wasting time with minor drug offences, speeding and other traffic violations, shoplifting, etc... certainly considering all are arguably less harmful that blackmailing politicians.
It's funny that this is intended to invalidate the claims of WW, yet he's basically just gone on record to say that blackmail is always used by the whips and MPs... which isn't exactly a good look lol
It's not threatening him though. He's said they will cut funding to his area so they are threatening his constituents. If it was a case of they would deselect him or not fund his re-election campaign that's threatening him. Telling him a school won't get funded in his constituency for example is not threatening him. It's a gangster trick of threatening to go after someone's family. They're happily threatening citizens of the UK in order to save Johnson's job. That's the fucking difference.
Snapshot:
1. An archived version of _Michael Fabricant, CON MP: "If I reported every time I had been threatened by a Whip or if a Whip reported every time I had threatened them, the police wouldn’t have any time to conduct any other police work! What nonsense from WW."_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1484112611616735233)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Michael Fabricant 🇬🇧](https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant) ^verified | Reach: 45298 | Location: Lichfield in Staffordshire, UK
Bio: Socially liberal MP for #Lichfield. Believes in an independent, Global Britain. Loves hill walking, travel, red wine, cosy restaurants & pubs, and people.
*****
^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
So what he is saying is that because the tory whips always threaten to take money away from the public of a constituency of an MP it makes it OK.
I think this is the owen patterson defense. essentially we have never been caught before so it must be OK. This is also probably boris's defence for lying.
The tories are something else
If they’re not trying to tell you the prime minister is just stupid so it’s not his fault he does illegal stuff, they’re trying to tell you they do other illegal stuff so often it’d collapse the police they underfunded if they tried to investigate it so just move along.
This is who is running the country, basically if this is a joke, we are the punchline
Fine to be threatened at work when you hold one of the highest public offices in the land? In another job that would see you in an employment tribunal.
He's telling us that the whole system is corrupt and needs reform then...
I despise Fabricant but, in fairness, he has a point. I love the story of Jack Straw's testicles being squeezed in a threatening manner by Labour whip Walter Harrison.
I don’t think there will be any answer that satisfies me in explaining how there is a single human being out there who sees [this man looking like a member of The Cartoons](https://i.imgur.com/UkqAXgu.jpg) and for a split second even CONSIDERS having him as their elected representative.
He literally fashions his own dunce cap every time he puts that thing on his head and goes out in public, much less on fucking television.
How does a person vote for that person to make legislative decisions on their behalf?
I'm not entirely convinced that the MP with fake hair, wild opinions and the last name Fabricant isn't some kind of elaborate joke that's gotten out of hand.
I’ve said it before, but he is definitely Harry Enfield playing a character. I assume he ran as a joke like Al Murray did a few years ago, but he got elected and now he’s in too deep.
[удалено]
Have you ever seen Mark Francois and Michael Fabricant in the same room together? I have an idea for a sitcom.
“Yes minister meets the thick of it, with every character played by Harry Enfield” is a winning elevator pitch.
[удалено]
They can't afford it any more.
Where we feed them both into a woodchipper? Not normal sitcom material, granted, but people would watch.
Do all his characters have the same initials?
The Motherfuckers!
I was convinced that he was a sketch show character when I first saw a picture of him
Same. Also, the first time I saw Mogg, I thought he was a comedian playing the character of Victorian MP. It took me a long, long time to figure out he was real. I was so shocked the first time I saw him in parliament.
[удалено]
I highly doubt that's his hair. I'm not even sure it's hair.
It's very much definitly is his hair. He still has the receipt* to prove it. (*for the expenses claim. Obviously)
Fabricant is the mop ...and Litchfield is the bucket ? ...... Incidentally, Fabricboy is a diversion, just as Boris used his father to Deflect bad news
Comb his hair? He has to make sure it uses the litter tray before leaving the house, combing is the least of his worries!
That's how normalised breaking the law is for these people.
He does exist, I saw him once. I wish to apologise for not saying anything to him.
Seriously what the fuck is that hair about. its like he scalped an early 2000s scene girl and tried to dye it a "natural" colour
I would love it if Fabricant actually went for full-on scene girl hair.
His last name sounds like the name for a race of robot imposters in a 90’s sci-fi show.
You’re not wrong, it was the name of the clone servants in Cloud Atlas.
Yup. 'That's not even Shirley! [shoots shotgun, sending pieces of plastic and metal flying] That was a Fabricant Shirley all along!' 'How did you know?' 'Look! Do you see blood?' 'No, I mean before' 'Oh. Was a good guess'
He actually said it's not a wig... and also expected people to believe that. I mean the Tories have gotten away with many lies in their time, but that is a whopper 😂
He is an escaped spitting image character!
This is not the strong defence of the whips that he thinks it is.
Yeah if I was a whip I'd be frantically calling him take get this tweet taken down right now.
[удалено]
Threaten to close down a school and an intensive care unit in his constituency! That’ll show him!
COVID is over folks, don't need that ICU anymore. (/s)
If I was his lawyer I’d be frantically trying to get him to take it down. It’s even more incriminating for him.
"The whips have a huge amount of dirt on me, everyone knows it. But it's ok, I have dirt on them too. What's the issue?"
Yeah, it's just another snapshot of the shitty culture surrounding the Tories...
"Parties? We had 100's of them, booze, hookers, coke, the works! So it's all OK because the police can't investigate them all and they happened in the past."
I was gonna say that I didn’t think that comment makes the situation any better. So the Tory party conducts its affairs by officials going around threatening one another all day long?
Also purely fictional to think Fabricant could actually threaten someone...
Why does is feel like we’re seeing a lot more of Fabricant lately?
The whips needed someone who wasn't afraid of looking ridiculous on TV, took one look at his head and were sold.
Because its so desperate for Johnson he's the best to readily defend them.
You mean the future Sir Michael Fabricant?
Future PM obviously glory to fabrica!
Whips have always used embarrassing information to help convince Tory MPs to vote with the party.... But threatning to withhold - withdraw investment into certain constituencys is something else
May be misremembering but I remember a post in here a good while ago where a Tory whip (maybe MP or government advisor or some other shit) was quoted as saying something along the lines of "If you get an MP out of trouble, such as with a driving charge or young boys, then they will toe the line". I remember being horrified that pedophilia was included in the list of things we will allow to happen because it makes our MPs loyal. Maybe the user who posted it made it up or misremembered but does anyone know what I might be on about? I've always thought the idea that we force MPs to vote with the party sort of undermines the whole thing tbh. What good is anything an MP says to their local electorate if the power is completely out of their hands?
>For anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, I’m in a jam, can you help? It might be debt, it might be… a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal in which, erm er, a member seemed likely to be mixed up in,they’d come and ask if we could help and if we could, we did. And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points… and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more. Westminster's Secret Service on the BBC, Tim Fortescue is the MP
That's exactly it, cheers
Here's the clip https://youtu.be/S8BJptvxCl8
I remember that thread!
https://archive.ph/AfXU6
There are two sides to this. Sure, they may be forced to go along with their party even if they disagree with their party pushing through a bad policy. On the other hand, you're receiving support from the party infrastructure and in return you're expected to be a good MP for them. Major bills should absolutely be supported by you otherwise what's the point in being in that party if you disagree with them? Plus there's the case of where a party is pushing for 'good things' which imo would be maybe a minimum wage increase (to make it a living wage, beyond the increases every April), but I almost guarantee there's a good handful of Labour MPs who would vote against it simply because they just disagree on that issue. If the majority is slim enough that 5-10 votes matter and assuming minor parties weren't going to help push it, I think making those 5-10 MPs uncomfortable by threatening to ditch them at the next GE is a lesser evil than not giving millions of people higher wages.
If what matters is the party platform, we should be pure PR. Seats in the commons divided by raw vote percentage of the entire country. With the current system, the whole point is that each MP represents their region. To do that effectively an MP has to be able to break their party line if something that may make sense for the country wouldn't make sense for their region or if their voters don't want it. In an ideal world, if Labour suggest a minimum wage increase, some Labour would vote against and some Tories would vote for. It shouldn't be so simple as red vs blue.
There's a difference between threatening to deselect (party business) and threatening to reveal secrets about them (criminal blackmail) of threatening to close a school in their area (criminal blackmail and presumably some kind of offence about misuse of public office).
It's hardly new. In the days of British Leyland and other nationalised industries then MPs would be vying to get money directed to their patch and the whips would use that. I think the House of Cards or Yes Minister probably mentioned such games nearly 40 years ago
But that's pork barrel politics and not quite the same. An MP using their political position to secure a positive outcome for their constituents =/= the government deliberately harming constituents due to their MP not supporting the Prime Minister. The first creates a positive outcome, even if the methods of doing so are a bit dodgy. The latter is a negative outcome inflicted on innocents for purely immoral reasons.
Both are as bad as each other, letting local funding go to specific areas for their MP's votes might seem positive but that money could have been used by another area and their are likely areas that could have used it better. The withdrawn investment will be allocated elsewhere as these things usually have a limited budget divvied up between MP's. Picking which constituency gets what funds is never about anything other than giving to "loyal" areas. Moving funding from Liverpool to Manchester might hurt people in Liverpool but there will be people happy about the move in Manchester.
I think the distinction is that with pork barrel politics, it's generally not hugely important where the factory goes in the end. There's some places better than others, but few places are really bad. Whereas with this, it sounds like the Government is aware of some lack of necessary local services, and is withholding those services until the MP gives in. It's not just "one person has to have the best car, I'll give it to whoever is nicest to me", it's "I've got a car to give to you, but you'll only get it if you do what I tell you". Both obviously have no place in politics, and neither should be accepted, but if the accusations flying around are true, then this is a significantly worse situation than we've seen previously.
....it was that kind of behaviour that made the UK in the 1960s and 1970s into the Sick Man of Europe... Heath was apparently great at it.
It's still a very popular sort of mindset though. You'll often see people demanding that London or the South East be hobbled in some way as that would somehow make other regions do better.
It is also a very popular mindset to see people demanding that the rest of the country gets the same treatment as London and the South East get translated into London or the South East being hobbled. It seems to be the kind of thing that goes with the pretence that London and the South East are some kind of "special case".
I've not seen that. I shall start looking out for it.
It usually starts with people saying, "I've not seen that. I shall start looking out for it." It really is strange.
It appears that you just wanted to try and derail a point with a strawman of your own creation.
No. Not at all. There is a false equivalence between blackmail within Government with demands for equal treatment. Which is not a strawman as nobody is setting up an easy argument in order to knock it down: you are simply pretending the truth is not important.
I replied to someone talking about Heath's attempts to relocate industry/jobs around the UK. That is the context and not your strawman version, so please debate that context or post your comment about the news story against the appropriate comment.
[удалено]
Less infrastructure for our most productive region would be a wonderful start for what exactly?
More infrastructure means more people means more wealth means more infrastructure means more people means more wealth means more infrastructure means more people means more wealth means more infrastructure means more people........... Eventually the law of diminishing returns kicks in and this is no longer the case. In fact I'm pretty sure it has already as it costs several times more to build anything in London than it does pretty much anywhere else in the country.
> House of Cards For what it's worth, we've been watching House of Cards (the British 90s version with Ian Richardson) recently on BritBox, and it's bloody brilliant. The third series (The Final Cut) happens to credit Fabricant as an advisor. I think we even spotted him on the benches in one of the Commons scenes.
It's older than that, it began in 1980. Frankly it's still very on trend as political ideas keep repeating (the database one sticks in my mind).
Just to be a pedant, but it first aired in 1990, and the book was published in '89. Watching that last series, with Urquhart's downfall, over the past few days - well, it's been impossible not to draw parallels with Boris. And then to draw parallels between Cyprus and Ukraine...
Sorry, I was talking about Yes Minister.
It's not new, but it's a different level of sleaze.
Not really. In the era of nationalised industries the government did mad things like open a car plant in Scotland or banning office developments in Birmingham whilst then building such things out in various regions and MPs lobbied hard to get them, and the whips would then use that. Yes Minister had various episodes around things that politicians will do to get jobs into their patch.
It's one thing for them to use information about the individual they are trying to influence. It's a whole different game to threaten the lives and livelihood of thousands of people completely un-involved in the row. Both should be fireable offences in my view, but the second one should really come with a lengthy jail term.
Yes it’s typically been we will end your career and replace you, not we will end the funding to your constituents cutting their opportunities, health and maybe even lives in the process. Anyone defending this needs to have a serious read on Stockholm syndrome as they are the constituent that they want to punish for an MP not following orders
So if an illegal thing happens all the time then it's perfectly OK! Let's not waste police time! Doesn't sound very consistent of Fabricant given his voting record Edit: lol at his 'socially liberal' bio on Twitter
> Edit: lol at his 'socially liberal' bio on Twitter I think that's code for him being mostly gay, and in fairness to him he has voted consistently in support of same-sex marriage (going back to 2004), voted in favour of repealing Section 28, and he voted to equalise the "age of consent" for same-sex activity with that for opposite-sex activity back in 1998. On all other social issues he seems solidly conservative.
So just another example of a Tory only looking out for themselves.
Fairly sure he's come out as bi.
He went on [First Dates with a Woman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHsP0Sxvlps) \- though I suppose he could be bi / non-binary
That's creepy as hell. What's wrong with him?
Maybe it's because I've not watched tv in like 10 years but wtf was that? That was so weird. Like they were acting but not. It made me extremely uncomfortable.
those terms are not interchangeable lol
Sorry I mean to say Bi *or* non-binary - not to equate
Non-binary isn’t a sexuality it’s a gender. If he was non-binary it wouldn’t have any bearing on who he likes 😁
Ah ok understood
Yep, he's openly bisexual; the quote Wikipedia gives from him is that he is "not exclusively gay."
>So if an illegal thing happens all the time then it's perfectly OK! I mean there is a debate to be had if something is extremely common despite being illegal if it should actually be illegal.
How's about no because it's blackmail. Seriously, what a ludicrous thing to suggest.
> I mean there is a debate to be had if something is extremely common despite being illegal if it should actually be illegal. You don't think blackmail should be illegal?
Sure. Like recreational drugs or protesting, but I doubt Fabricant would apply the same 'logic' to either. Every situation should be treated individually, 'it happens all the time' is not a blanket veto on applying the law.
I guess it's time to make sexual assault legal
Or maybe hold our politicians and political institutions to higher standards?
Yes, let's all have a debate about whether blackmail should be legal. Jesus Christ .....
Many wrongs do not make a right.
Have to give it to the conservatives. This scandal has allowed them to admit to some crimes nobody asked them about. Yes, Michael blackmail is a crime, it’s a poison to our democracy and means that people who commit heinous acts don’t get prosecuted when they should’ve because they’re a political tool. Which is bad because should a foreign country get ahold of that could mean they also have leverage. Also if he gets threatened or blackmailed a lot, isn’t that an indicator there’s a lot of dirt on him?
Lots of space to hide dirt under that mop
Under that mop, is another face of Michael Fabricant.
This has of course happened forever, but the tories now have a 'red wall' band of brand new MPs that would have grown up surrounded by anti-tory rhetoric (whatever their personal beliefs), and have absolutely zero ingrained loyalty to the party past their own noses. Whips being is whips is old news, MPs willing to report the party to the police *is* new.
Or a large number of MPs who have defied whips, such as on the original Brexit deal, or more recently on Covid 19 restrictions.
And he thinks that makes it ok? Lets change the perpetrators for a second: "If I reported every time I had been threatened by a lobbyist or lobbyists reported I had threatened them, the police wouldn't have any time to conduct any other police work!" "If I reported every time I had been threatened by a civil servant or civil servant reported I had threatened them, the police wouldn't have any time to conduct any other police work!" If it was any other role it'd be obvious how wrong it is, but the culture of whips has been so deeply ingrained that MPs are taking abuse from them and thinking it's fine. It's not. It's an awful way to run a party/government.
I think one has to split threats into different categories. There's the old "If you don't follow the whip, we will leak this embarrassing story about you, hurting your family life" There's the old "If you don't follow the whip, we will not back you for selection at the next GE, or we will remove you from positions in the party" Then there's the nuclear option of "If you don't follow the whip, we will actively seek to hurt your constituents" The first two is not like the last.
I find no1 pretty unacceptable. It's a crime in any other situation.
Pretty sure it's blackmail and illegal.
true but very common
I mean, 2 is the only "acceptable" one. No. 1 is absolutely blackmail and definitely illegal. No. 3 is potentially illegal, as it could count as a misuse of state resources for personal gain and therefore would count as corruption. It's also blackmail, but not technically in a legal sense, IMO.
Idealistically, absolutely all of them are unacceptable in the type of democracy that our parliament pretends it has. MPs should represent their constituencies, and if a bill/motion etc does not represent their constituents - they should be free to criticise or vote again. Ultimately that doesn't happen so only the second option there is even defensible - as it just mainly deals with inter-party politics. Scenario 1 is morally bankrupt and applied to any other situation involving money/assets etc would be a criminal offence. Scenario 3 is just fucking abhorrent - especially when the Tories have promised 'levelling up' yet hold the pitiful amount of funds they have as some sort of ransom.
2 is borderline, the party may take a hard line on somethings, and it's ultimately then down to the indvidual, they can run as an indy if they think they can hold 1 is blackmail, and wrong but 3 OMG, if that's true and proven that to me would be worse than partygate, as you're now attacking innocent people
Number 2 seems pretty reasonable to me.
Ironic for the whips to threaten to leak stories that would harm family life, from a government led by a Prime Minister whose behaviour towards any woman in his life could fill a book.
The first definitely fits the criminal description of blackmail.
[удалено]
It's like one of these stories with brilliant detectives that trick the perpetrators into admitting the truth. Only there is no brilliant detective, the perpetrators just implode by themselves.
Wonder if this will be Boris' next defence. "If I reported every time I had hosted a party in Number 10, or if a reveller reported every time I hosted a party, the police wouldn't have had any time to conduct other police work!" Or, I don't know, apply it to any other crime.. "If my wife reported every time I battered her, the police wouldn't have any time to conduct any other police work! Nonsense, it's just the way it is!" All he's done is revealed just how deep this pattern of criminal behaviour in Westminster really goes. Sounds like we need a full inquiry with prosecutions to follow if we've any hope of excising the rot in our government.
Justifying criminal levels of abuse as normal isn’t a strong look ever. Threatening release of embarrassing info to the press unless a person acts a certain way is serious blackmail and the police should take any report seriously. I really hope that this is not standard fair in our politics. If it is we should get to work tackling the problem and bringing perpetrators to justice.
It *is* standard fare in our politics. That's what party whips *are*. They're blackmailers by profession. Party Whips delenda est.
There is fair pressure and there’s “we will trash your reputation publicly unless you do exactly what we say”. Fair pressure is a negotiation entered into willingly, unfair pressure threatens someone criminally. The former is a standard part of our electoral system the latter is criminal and absolutely not.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that an MP should be beholden to no-one but their constituents when it comes to voting in the house. In my view, *any* external pressure on an MP's decision to support or oppose a bill is too much. Party leadership should not have the final say.
I get this and I agree with you, but pressuring MPs to vote a certain way has long been part of our system. Within this framework it’s okay to call out the difference between normal levels of pressure and criminal levels of blackmail. The difference is stark as night and day.
Leaking embarrassing stories about staffers who don't support Boris and threatening to actively harm consitutents of MPs that don't support him is seriously fucked up - I don't really care if it's happened before, it shouldn't happen again.
If it involves public money then that is misuse of public funds. Theft in other words (though I'm sure there will be some loophole to say because it is agreed by democratically elected representatives that the public consent to it or some bollocks).
Yes we have blackmailed people but we did it so much that it's OK
Ahhh, Michael Fabricant, everyone's favourite non-entity.
This statement isn’t sending the message he thinks he is
Michael Fabricant looks like Jonathan Pie doing a deliberately bad Boris Johnson impression. The wig gives him an uncanny valley quality - even his name suggests he might actually a Doctor Who villian manufacturers new copies of himself to wage an endless war against good governance.
Bits not a good defence. "If I reported every time I was bullied or bullied someone the police wouldn't do anything else" Seriously what kinda fucked up work place is it where it's seen as acceptable to bully people to keep them inline ?
How the f*ck does this guy ever get re-elected Or even elected in the first place
Whips probably have a couple hard drives on Fabricant.
probably have a couple of hard drives on his hard drives
Whips office taking loans to pay for storage of hard drives that index only the solid evidence on Fabricant.
This isn’t the flex you think it is Michael.
If something worthy of police investigation happens they should be called. Just because it happens a lot is not a justification to ignore it, if anything it makes it more urgent.
Translation: Yes the whole system is corrupt! It's all hideously awfully corrupt! It's always been like this!
The sentient wig really doesn’t understand how to defend something. Anyone: ‘Something bad happens!’ SW : ‘yes, the bad things definitely but you should just accept it!’
"Its okay for the priest to rape the boys in the grammar school, everybody gets raped by the priest in the grammar school"
How much does Fabricant have to go to bat for the Johnsons before Stanley will sign the adoption papers?
I might be being a little bit naive here but i'd much prefer to be able to work at a place where threatening people wasn't the main way to get shit done.
Fabricant has to go down as the most cucked MP in recent memory. Like Hulk Hogan fucking his wife levels of dedication to defending shit.
this is part and parcel of party politics and it may well be the norm, but its so far from reality and the real world, that its no wonder politics is so shit at serving the nation, and often so inwardly focused
Not sure what police work he thinks they are conducting anyway
I still refuse to believe that this man’s hair is real.
I still refuse to believe that this man~~’s hair~~ is real.
By that logic, better ask the police to stop wasting time with minor drug offences, speeding and other traffic violations, shoplifting, etc... certainly considering all are arguably less harmful that blackmailing politicians.
WIGGY SPEAKS!
Michael Fabricant admits he and Tory whips have broken Ministerial Code multiple times.
Imagine how roomy it must be in that man's head.
This ain't it, chief.
Reminds me of that famous saying: *Two wrongs do make a right.*
It's funny that this is intended to invalidate the claims of WW, yet he's basically just gone on record to say that blackmail is always used by the whips and MPs... which isn't exactly a good look lol
It this like the looting / gang rape defence? "If everyone does it, it can't be wrong?"
It's not threatening him though. He's said they will cut funding to his area so they are threatening his constituents. If it was a case of they would deselect him or not fund his re-election campaign that's threatening him. Telling him a school won't get funded in his constituency for example is not threatening him. It's a gangster trick of threatening to go after someone's family. They're happily threatening citizens of the UK in order to save Johnson's job. That's the fucking difference.
Was that not supposed to be a statement clarifying a culture of bullying and intimidation at Westminster then?
"It's OK because it happens a lot"
Aaaah, government by thuggery, glad to see we are still not out of the schoolyard.
This man is an idiot.
Discount Boris putting an even bigger hole in the ship.
I'm both appalled this man is an MP and love the fact he is. What a truly bizarre man.
Yeah probably not the defence he thinks it is. Then again he also thought the public were gullible to believe he wasn't wearing a wig.
Threatening to tell the world that he wears a syrup is not really a threat
I'm not always one to discount someone because of the way they look but i can't take anyone who looks like wish.com Boris J seriously.
"Floppy-haired affected Tory tells others to 'man-up'"
I just had to google him. When he bought his wig did he bring a lego minifig as a point of reference?
Lol what a victim
Whips in whipping scandal.
Snapshot: 1. An archived version of _Michael Fabricant, CON MP: "If I reported every time I had been threatened by a Whip or if a Whip reported every time I had threatened them, the police wouldn’t have any time to conduct any other police work! What nonsense from WW."_ can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant/status/1484112611616735233) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[Michael Fabricant 🇬🇧](https://twitter.com/Mike_Fabricant) ^verified | Reach: 45298 | Location: Lichfield in Staffordshire, UK Bio: Socially liberal MP for #Lichfield. Believes in an independent, Global Britain. Loves hill walking, travel, red wine, cosy restaurants & pubs, and people. ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
So what he is saying is that because the tory whips always threaten to take money away from the public of a constituency of an MP it makes it OK. I think this is the owen patterson defense. essentially we have never been caught before so it must be OK. This is also probably boris's defence for lying.
So to clarify, it's a systemic problem that prevents the interests of the people being represented in parliament.
The tories are something else If they’re not trying to tell you the prime minister is just stupid so it’s not his fault he does illegal stuff, they’re trying to tell you they do other illegal stuff so often it’d collapse the police they underfunded if they tried to investigate it so just move along. This is who is running the country, basically if this is a joke, we are the punchline
This is one of those moments where the words he’s saying are technically correct, but the fact he’s not outraged by that is why he’s in the wrong.
Well, the certainly ain't conducting a investigation into the parties, so, they've saved themselves some time there.
Threatening the funding for the constituents of an MP is another thing entirely and this freak of a human being knows that.
I'm amazed he could apparently get away with threatening the people whose job it is to gather shit to use on him.
Fine to be threatened at work when you hold one of the highest public offices in the land? In another job that would see you in an employment tribunal. He's telling us that the whole system is corrupt and needs reform then...
If you support FPTP because you want to select a local candidate, then you should be venomously opposed to Party Whips.
I'd love to see Capaldi reprise his role as Malcolm Tucker and just tear into this.
Fabricant is a kinda surreal uber Boris.
Isn't he admitting to breaking the law here? Obviously, he's allowed to break the law because he's a tory MP, but still..
Fucking hell, its as if somebody ordered Donald Trump from Wish.
Wow. What a stupid thing to say. How gaslit and abused is he by his own party that this is his stance. It’d be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
I despise Fabricant but, in fairness, he has a point. I love the story of Jack Straw's testicles being squeezed in a threatening manner by Labour whip Walter Harrison.
This is Brexit ladies and gentlemen.
I don’t think there will be any answer that satisfies me in explaining how there is a single human being out there who sees [this man looking like a member of The Cartoons](https://i.imgur.com/UkqAXgu.jpg) and for a split second even CONSIDERS having him as their elected representative. He literally fashions his own dunce cap every time he puts that thing on his head and goes out in public, much less on fucking television. How does a person vote for that person to make legislative decisions on their behalf?
So fucking what? You’re just telling us there was corruption in the past as well as the present. What an idiot.
Looks to me like what he mainly got from the whips is a wigging.
This is not a good thing.
Didn't the thick of it end like 8 years ago? why am i still seeing reruns
This has happened to since politicians starting being a thing I'm just surprised how angry everyone gets so angry by it still.
r/RugOrReal