Nice school you got there; would be a shame if you didn't support the Prime Minister
The horrible thing about what William Wragg alleges is that it's not actually uncommon within politics for parties to have this level of gravitas over certain members.
And what William Wragg is doing - at this point, and as a member of the Conservative Party who has been calling for Johnson's resignation for some time now - could be political expediency.
However.
Take for example the relatively old story of the alleged Tory 'Dirty Dossier' of sex pests in the party, which draws on the black book of indiscretions committed by around 40 Conservatives.
Including [allegedly] Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Dominic Raab, and other cabinet members.
Gavin Williamson, the former Education Secretary who once upon a time - when facing down threats of a revolt - sat with a Whip across his table in a message that wasn't just to be interpreted as a symbol of backwards authority on discipline in education settings but also directed square at Conservatives who might have sought to depose him at the time.
A threat, if anything, that he might have something on *choose your Conservative*
Williamson was the Chief Whip during Theresa May's tenure as leader of the party, after all.
Example:
There may be an important vote, say.
On a policy that you may disagree with.
You make it known that you disagree - not across the front page of the Daily Mail but among the back rooms and corridors of Westminster.
Word is then passed to the Chief Whip who instructs his underlings to pay you a visit.
"If you do not fall in line - however much you disagree - *this* scandal involving you will be made public and you will be ‘done’. Your career will be over. You will never work in politics again. You will be a ghost to your colleagues. Using our contacts in the media, we will sprawl it in big, bold letters across the morning papers. Your family will likely fall apart due to the strain. You will be left bankrupt. You will rot and you will die alone."
For sake of transparency, this isn't a real quote but rather an imagined quote - as it turns out*, it’s not that far from the truth.
What's interesting though, about the 'Dirty Dossier', is that William Wragg is included on it.
Wragg noted in his speech, of stories being leaked to the press as a mode of intimidation.
His, or the alleged story involving William Wragg [unrepeated for legal reasons on this page], would be rather embarrassing indeed.
And so he is either extremely brave for doing this [against his own party] or he is incredibly stupid.
In either case, when Christian Wakeford - spoken about on this page several days before his defection to Labour - took time to speak to the media for the first time, he spoke of a bullying and black-mailing culture within the Conservatives.
One suspects, to some degree, Wragg - and other Northern MPs and those described as "fucking nobodies" by members of the cabinet, may have even sympathised having similarly been accosted by the same 'men in grey suits.'
Perhaps, in Wragg's case, to ensure his important vote or - 'we release dirty dossier information.'
Perhaps, as Wakeford says, to ensure his important vote or plans for a new school in his constituency will be scrapped, which, if true, is obviously deplorable.
What's also interesting about this story and Wragg's allegations is that - frankly - it is not new.
Both the Financial Times and this page spoke about it back in November at the height of the Owen Paterson scandal insofar as MPs were allegedly blackmailed into supporting the vote to save the beleaguered former MP for North Shropshire.
And actually, the culture of blackmail within Parliament is so widely accepted as existing, that it is almost normalised and therefore unsurprising when somebody [like Wragg] brings it to our attention.
It does not, however, discount how serious the allegations are - or how deplorable they are bearing mind Wakeford’s allegations.
Indeed, constitutional lawyer George Peretz QC invokes the Nolan principles; specifically, the matter of 'Objectivity'
Peretz states:
"If a Minister took a decision not to fund a project in constituency C because the MP for C had written a letter to Brady, that would be a breach of the Objectivity principle in the Nolan principles/Ministerial Code."
"And if you could prove that that was why funding was refused, the disappointed applicant could apply for judicial review: taking into account a legally irrelevant consideration is a settled ground for quashing a decision."
Caveat:
"(The “if” is an issue, of course.)"
Indeed.
The Prime Minister himself pursued the patented Johnny Tightlips manoeuvre and said:
The first and initial concern for the Prime Minister should be that claims of blackmail carry the charges of a criminal offence.
Politically, what is problematic for the Prime Minister is that William Wragg made these allegations while chairing the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Claims made at Committees - like those made by Wragg - must be verifiable, and with evidence.
As Chair, Wragg would know this.
In The Times [*”as it turns out”], further claims are made that the evidence is ‘on tape’, with one further Tory MP supporting the claims made by Wakeford and alleging:
“They [whips] got right up in my face. They told me that if you think you’re getting a single f***ing penny, forget it.”
Wragg is also the vice-chair of the 1922 Committee and among the standing of pro-Brexit/Leave supporters - like David Davis and Steve Baker - and therefore considered inscrutable by voters that support it, too.
However, as pollster James Johnson notes:
And so this scandal is not best viewed through the prism of Brexit but rather the view of ‘the average voter’.
The average voter, it turns out, is rather disgusted indeed, and so adds to the woes for Boris Johnson - although in this case, he cannot obfuscate with the Sue Gray report.
But then as noted just this very morning, the mood is dark with the revelations that may contain, too.