Charlie Elphicke: Former Tory MP jailed for two years after being found guilty of three sexual assaults

[1finny]

I assume you're referring to left-leaning board members?

How are we undermining the current leader? And how does anything on this board compare to the actions taken against Corbyn by Labour MPs and officials?

Being critical of Starmer, Streeting, Reeves et al, and their statements as to how they'll govern, is not the same as setting up a new office specifically to prevent the LOTO from knowing you're actively working against the party.

I’m not comparing, not referring to ‘left leaning’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) and you are undermining him.
You are critical of everything he does (unless I have missed something) - which is exactly what the Tories are doing.

Here’s a different approach.
Like you, I didn’t agree with everything JC said and did. He was the leader of the party and I supported him through both elections.
I was prepared to wait and judge him on performance if he made it and/or he lost.

I’m exactly the same with KS.

 

[Laughing]

It's an incontrovertible fact that both sides were working against him - maybe not together, I don't know - so by your own definition it's not a conspiracy.


"Let" is doing a lot of hard work there. What would you have done, in Corbyn's shoes, that wouldn't have resulted in more bad press from the people who were in charge of the press.

You do remember the doctored image on Newsnight to make his hat appear more Russian? How would you have countered that?


May was expected to win by a landslide, which is why she called the election when she did. The point Trug is making, I assume, is that Corbyn might have got enough votes to unseat her - against all the odds - if one or two Labour officials had spent a tiny bit more energy trying to get Labour elected instead of undermining the party.


Then that someone would be wrong. A hung parliament was about 3500 votes short. Labour, with a majority in opposition to the then government, would have been able to dictate terms in that eventuality. There is nothing mathematically wrong with that premise. The reality, in terms of where votes came from, would probably have required some multiples of that number - but considering how certain the country was of a resounding Tory victory, the fact Labour came that close - despite the insiders working against the party - should be enough to make anyone, seriously affected by the past 15 years, very angry. It's a mark of shame that some aren't.


When did Corbyn ever release a manifesto stating he'd renege on our NATO treaty obligations or scrap Trident?


That's already been answered - keep up..!

You really do spout crap. Only Corbyn could have done something about what was happening inside his own party.

Literally only Corbyn could have ended it and chose not to.

There are several posters that contribute to these threads that cross over from reasoned political debate on Starmer's decision making process' to actively trying to encourage people not to vote for starmer. A fairly odios position to adopt given the alternatives.

 

[Scrote]

I’m not comparing, not referring to ‘left leaning’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) and you are undermining him.
You are critical of everything he does (unless I have missed something) - which is exactly what the Tories are doing.

Here’s a different approach.
Like you, I didn’t agree with everything JC said and did. He was the leader of the party and I supported him through both elections.
I was prepared to wait and judge him on performance if he made it and/or he lost.

I’m exactly the same with KS.

I wouldn't have anything to criticise if people didn't start threads congratulating him for doing things that a Labour leader shouldn't be doing. And I appreciate that there's a huge chunk of subjectivity in that.

There aren't many (if any?) threads started specifically to bash Starmer. It's usually something being posted about a political event that then gets derailed by people raising the ghost of Corbyn to show why Starmer is doing everything right. People like myself then question whether a Labour leader should be doing things right when historically most Labour leaders have been trying to do things left.

I also find I have to write the same half-dozen sentences to the same half-dozen people who are happy to regurgitate criticism of Corbyn that has been debunked a thousand times. Another tactic from the right-wing playbook. If it isn't consistently refuted it becomes the new baseline. It's exhausting but that's why they do it. Why even bring Corbyn into the conversation?

I didn't vote for KS as leader but was happy to go along with the democratic vote up until the point he reneged on his promises and then started a cull of the left of the party. His reverse-ferret on Brexit and his idiotic stances on Gaza, immigration etc. to appeal to right-wing voters just leave me cold.

 

[Cardiffdaffs]

I wouldn't have anything to criticise if people didn't start threads congratulating him for doing things that a Labour leader shouldn't be doing. And I appreciate that there's a huge chunk of subjectivity in that.

There aren't many (if any?) threads started specifically to bash Starmer. It's usually something being posted about a political event that then gets derailed by people raising the ghost of Corbyn to show why Starmer is doing everything right. People like myself then question whether a Labour leader should be doing things right when historically most Labour leaders have been trying to do things left.

I also find I have to write the same half-dozen sentences to the same half-dozen people who are happy to regurgitate criticism of Corbyn that has been debunked a thousand times. Another tactic from the right-wing playbook. If it isn't consistently refuted it becomes the new baseline. It's exhausting but that's why they do it. Why even bring Corbyn into the conversation?

I didn't vote for KS as leader but was happy to go along with the democratic vote up until the point he reneged on his promises and then started a cull of the left of the party. His reverse-ferret on Brexit and his idiotic stances on Gaza, immigration etc. to appeal to right-wing voters just leave me cold.

The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard wrote a line that sums up the political argument about the past, and Jeremy Corbyn is now the past so will never get into any long discussions on why it went wrong for Labour in terms of electoral defeat under his leadership. He was a very good man but I still maintain he was not a great politician. Anyway that line was simply “Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards”

All I want to live out the rest of my healthy years is not to waste my ebbing time on this Earth looking backwards. Let’s get rid of these crooks at the helm later this year and then live our life out for the better. That’s my view now.

 

[Scrote]

You really do spout crap. Only Corbyn could have done something about what was happening inside his own party.

Literally only Corbyn could have ended it and chose not to.

Why didn't Hitler* prevent Operation Valkyrie? Why did he risk letting von Stauffenberg bring a bomb into the building. Hitler was in charge. Surely he could have done something about what was happening in his own army?

Literally only Hitler could have stopped it and he chose not to. Why was that? I find it really odd that he'd deliberately put himself that close to an assassination attempt.

Just explain what Corbyn was supposed to do. You keep implying it would have been easy and yet you've failed to even suggest a possible strategy he could have employed. How was he going to magically** know about something that was being deliberately hidden from him, and his team?

When you consider that his attempts to speed up the complaints procedure wrt antisemitism claims have been spun as him interfering negatively in the process, what were his options? Just point me to the obvious bit of intelligence that I'm missing and maybe we can draw a line under this.

*if you're worried about that going a bit too Godwin then feel free to substitute Julius Caesar
**he wasn't actually a "magic grandpa"

There are several posters that contribute to these threads that cross over from reasoned political debate on Starmer's decision making process' to actively trying to encourage people not to vote for starmer. A fairly odios position to adopt given the alternatives.

Then feel free to bring that up with them. I've never encouraged anyone to vote against Labour. I've only ever made my own position clear, when asked.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

All I want to live out the rest of my healthy years is not to waste my ebbing time on this Earth looking backwards. Let’s get rid of these crooks at the helm later this year and then live our life out for the better. That’s my view now.

Does that mean you're placing your chances of a better future in the hands of those who try to understand the world on your behalf?

 

[LessoftheLip]

There aren't many (if any?) threads started specifically to bash Starmer. It's usually something being posted about a political event that then gets derailed by people raising the ghost of Corbyn to show why Starmer is doing everything right. People like myself then question whether a Labour leader should be doing things right when historically most Labour leaders have been trying to do things left.

This thread is not in the category you have described above yet here we are all of us arguing about the past, present and future. It's not how I want to spend my days and I'm sure you don't either.

The thread was originally about her ex-husband from a long time ago. It was resurrected as a result of recent events. Ok I can see the logic in doing that, sort of.

As far as I can see, nobody is 'comfortable' with Starmer's decision here. Many posters, including me, don't want her anywhere near the Labour Party and I've said so much earlier in the thread. I wasn't looking for 'likes' or praise for adopting that position but it's telling that neither you nor other 'like minded' posters don't have it in you to say 'do you know what, I don't agree with you on much but I agree with you on that score'. It seems to be a red line you are unwilling or unable to cross. Instead, you and other others falsely accuse some posters of 'celebrating' Starmer's decision or 'congratulating' him for making it. Someone saying 'I can see the logic because it's designed to inflict maximum damage on Sunak in the week Labour will announce its manifesto policy on small boats/people smuggling' shouldn't be accused of 'celebrating'.

I'll tell you when this thread started to derail. It was when someone conflated the issue of Labour accepting the defection of Elphicke with the whip status of Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn.

So on this occasion, it's not a political event being discussed that then gets derailed by people raising the ghost of Corbyn to show why Starmer is doing everything right. It's actually a political event being discussed that then gets derailed by people raising the ghost of Corbyn to show why Starmer is doing everything wrong.

 

[1finny]

also find I have to write the same half-dozen sentences to the same half-dozen people who are happy to regurgitate criticism of Corbyn that has been debunked a thousand times. Another tactic from the right-wing playbook. If it isn't consistently refuted it becomes the new baseline. It's exhausting but that's why they do it. Why even bring Corbyn into the conversation?

Yes - fair enough

 

[Laughing]

Why didn't Hitler* prevent Operation Valkyrie? Why did he risk letting von Stauffenberg bring a bomb into the building. Hitler was in charge. Surely he could have done something about what was happening in his own army?

Literally only Hitler could have stopped it and he chose not to. Why was that? I find it really odd that he'd deliberately put himself that close to an assassination attempt.

Just explain what Corbyn was supposed to do. You keep implying it would have been easy and yet you've failed to even suggest a possible strategy he could have employed. How was he going to magically** know about something that was being deliberately hidden from him, and his team?

When you consider that his attempts to speed up the complaints procedure wrt antisemitism claims have been spun as him interfering negatively in the process, what were his options? Just point me to the obvious bit of intelligence that I'm missing and maybe we can draw a line under this.

*if you're worried about that going a bit too Godwin then feel free to substitute Julius Caesar
**he wasn't actually a "magic grandpa"


Then feel free to bring that up with them. I've never encouraged anyone to vote against Labour. I've only ever made my own position clear, when asked.

No one is asking and certainly not over and over again.

Your argument in support of Corbyn are juvenile.

 

[BlindBoyGrunt]

Why didn't Hitler* prevent Operation Valkyrie? Why did he risk letting von Stauffenberg bring a bomb into the building. Hitler was in charge. Surely he could have done something about what was happening in his own army?

Literally only Hitler could have stopped it and he chose not to. Why was that? I find it really odd that he'd deliberately put himself that close to an assassination attempt.

Just explain what Corbyn was supposed to do. You keep implying it would have been easy and yet you've failed to even suggest a possible strategy he could have employed. How was he going to magically** know about something that was being deliberately hidden from him, and his team?

When you consider that his attempts to speed up the complaints procedure wrt antisemitism claims have been spun as him interfering negatively in the process, what were his options? Just point me to the obvious bit of intelligence that I'm missing and maybe we can draw a line under this.

*if you're worried about that going a bit too Godwin then feel free to substitute Julius Caesar
**he wasn't actually a "magic grandpa"


Then feel free to bring that up with them. I've never encouraged anyone to vote against Labour. I've only ever made my own position clear, when asked.

How would it have looked if he'd removed the whip from the 21 Shadow cabinet members who performed a choreographed resignation nine months into his leadership? Tom Watson remained in place and continued to openly criticise Corbyn but Corbyn couldn't sack him because he was elected.

How could Corbyn possibly know that the NEC who are supposed to work for the leader and the good of the party, were letting accusations of antiSemitism pile up on the desk whilst trawling facebook and twitter with keywords to find tenuous excuses to oust his supporters?

How could he possibly know that the same Committee were diverting funds to a secret office and away from the marginals where they were supposed to go?

 

[Scrote]

This thread is not in the category you have described above yet here we are all of us arguing about the past, present and future. It's not how I want to spend my days and I'm sure you don't either.

The thread was originally about her ex-husband from a long time ago. It was resurrected as a result of recent events. Ok I can see the logic in doing that, sort of.

As far as I can see, nobody is 'comfortable' with Starmer's decision here. Many posters, including me, don't want her anywhere near the Labour Party and I've said so much earlier in the thread. I wasn't looking for 'likes' or praise for adopting that position but it's telling that neither you nor other 'like minded' posters don't have it in you to say 'do you know what, I don't agree with you on much but I agree with you on that score'. It seems to be a red line you are unwilling or unable to cross. Instead, you and other others falsely accuse some posters of 'celebrating' Starmer's decision or 'congratulating' him for making it. Someone saying 'I can see the logic because it's designed to inflict maximum damage on Sunak in the week Labour will announce its manifesto policy on small boats/people smuggling' shouldn't be accused of 'celebrating'.

I'll tell you when this thread started to derail. It was when someone conflated the issue of Labour accepting the defection of Elphicke with the whip status of Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn.

So on this occasion, it's not a political event being discussed that then gets derailed by people raising the ghost of Corbyn to show why Starmer is doing everything right. It's actually a political event being discussed that then gets derailed by people raising the ghost of Corbyn to show why Starmer is doing everything wrong.

I don't know why the old thread was resurrected as opposed to just starting a new one - you'd need to ask the person that did that. I'm guessing it was to link Elphicke with her husband without having to type out a huge chunk of back-story. Quite elegant in it's own way as the original thread was only a few posts long.

I don't particularly care about Starmer/Elphicke. It doesn't change my opinion on Starmer/Labour. If it ushers in an election then great - I don't see why the Tories will do anything sooner than they're legally obliged though. If you're feeling a little queasy about it then that just means Starmer has finally moved far enough to the right that he's gone past your personal threshold of nose-holding. Mine was a good chunk further left. Welcome to the party...

You might want to look again at where Corbyn was first raised. Had the whip issue been his first mention then you'd have a point but it wasn't. He'd already been raised as a way to show why Starmer was so much better at politics than everyone else. Starmer was being celebrated, despite him doing something that everyone seems to be in agreement is 'a bad thing'.

And I'm not sure that adults should really worry about who does and doesn't like their posts. Feels a bit needy

 

[Scrote]

No one is asking and certainly not over and over again.

No-one is asking what?

I'm asking you to explain something. You keep telling me it's obvious but won't actually post why/how. Is it really that difficult?

Your argument in support of Corbyn are juvenile.

Your arguments against Corbyn are senile.

 

[LessoftheLip]

I don't know why the old thread was resurrected as opposed to just starting a new one - you'd need to ask the person that did that.

I wasn't asking you why the old thread was resurrected, so I don't 'need' to ask the person who did that why they did. I was simply setting the scene to my reply. Why is your opening to a reply always adversarial? There was no need for that.

If you're feeling a little queasy about it then that just means Starmer has finally moved far enough to the right that he's gone past your personal threshold of nose-holding.

Why do you feel you have the authority to tell me how I am feeling about the situation? I've said I don't want her anywhere near the Labour Party. I'm not feeling queasy about it and I'm not holding my nose. It's a mistake, a misstep, nothing more. Starmer's made more than enough 'good' decisions in my mind to offset the odd mistake. Thanks for the party invitation but I'm washing my hair that night.

You might want to look again at where Corbyn was first raised. Had the whip issue been his first mention then you'd have a point but it wasn't.

Ah yes I can see Corbyn was mentioned once beforehand. Fair enough but I'd still argue that the whip issue has made a significant contribution to the deterioration of the thread.

 

[Scrote]

Why is your opening to a reply always adversarial?

How is it adversarial to agree with what you're saying, post an opinion about why I think something might have been done, and then suggest asking the OP for a definitive answer (if you want to)?

I accept tone can be difficult when typing but I think you're over-reacting for dramatic effect on this one.

Why do you feel you have the authority to tell me how I am feeling about the situation?

I'm not telling you anything. The "If" is a good indicator. I'm offering my opinion. Feel free to ignore it or disagree, as you see fit.

 

[Lefty]

???

Are you okay?

Not sure how asking about political donations causes a problem, no matter how busy you are. Genuinely, hope you're feeling better in the morning.

Lol

A combination plenty of rum and not my own glasses.

Saw the notification you'd quoted me, tapped on it, didn't spot it was Laughing's posts about the incompetence of Corbyn and his Office rather than any of mine. He/they were though.

I didn't feel better in the morning either, way too hungover to even operate the fisting sling.

 

[Scrote]

Lol

A combination plenty of rum and not my own glasses.

Saw the notification you'd quoted me, tapped on it, didn't spot it was Laughing's posts about the incompetence of Corbyn and his Office rather than any of mine. He/they were though.

I didn't feel better in the morning either, way too hungover to even operate the fisting sling.

Hope you've recovered now! From the hangover and the sex dungeon...

And apologies for the confusion - I never know whether to post an individual response to people or to bundle them all up as I did here. I'll try to remember to do the former from now on.

 

[Lefty]

Hope you've recovered now! From the hangover and the sex dungeon...

And apologies for the confusion - I never know whether to post an individual response to people or to bundle them all up as I did here. I'll try to remember to do the former from now on.

I'll try to remember if I watch Eurovision I'll inevitably end up wanting a lot to drink.

I can see the thread carried on, but I haven't caught up and not sure I can be pestered this week. Too much revisiting old ground is draining after a while. I'm sure the subject of Corbyn and his teams incompetence will come up again.

For what it's worth, I don't think Corbyn and his team were useless or incompetent 2015-2017. Actually quite good, considering in that period they were definitely hamstrung by some disgraceful shenanigans by some individuals and had support that they were reasonably entitled to withheld by many others.

In the period post the 2017 GE up to the calling of 2019 GE, plus Brexit entirely, that is a very different matter.

 

[Lefty]

As a post-script to the Natalie Elphicke defection story.

Earlier this week there was a vote on a bill going through Parliament to suspend MP's accused of serious violent or sexual offences.

The bill was to address issues of serious wrong doing in the House of Commons, improve the culture around the place as a result, but most importantly to safeguard victims.

The bill was introduced by the leader of the house, Penny Mordaunt, based on recommendations from the House of Commons Commission. Currently party whips decide if and when an MP accused of an offence should be prevented from attending the parliamentary estate. The new plans mean that a panel, including senior MP's, will conduct a risk assessment when the Clerk of the House is informed by police that an MP has been arrested, and then the MP will be suspended from the grounds and building, though not sacked as an MP, nor prevented by voting by proxy.

Recently however, under pressure from right wing Conservative back benchers, Mordaunt brought forward a motion to water down the bill. The government wanted to amend the bill so that the threshold for the MP to be brought before the panel was when the Police charge an MP with an offence. The Conservative's argument centered on the unfairness on MP's who are often the subject of vexatious accusations, so they thought the bar should be once the MP was actually charged.

Labour MP Jess Philips and Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain tabled an amendment to restore the bar to arrest. Their counter argument was that the bar is quite high just for the police to arrest someone, but the most important point was to safeguard accusers and thousands of staff. If the bar is when someone is charged, since less than 1% of cases result in charges actually being brought, accusers would most likely think 'what's the point?'

The Labour/Lib Dem amendment was passed in a 170-169 vote. So by just one vote.

It was a free vote, however the breakdown of the 169 who voted No was

1 Lib Dem
2 Independents (Andrew Bridgen, Bob Stewart)
166 Conservatives (including Mordaunt, Steve Baker, Miriam Cates, Brendan Clarke-Smith, James Cleverly, Therese Coffey, Dehenna Davison, David Davis, Michelle Donelan, IDS, Tobias Ellwood, Liam Fox, Mark Francois, Peter Gibson, Jonathan Gullis, Greg Hands, Mark Harper, Bernard Jenkins, Robert Jenrick, Daniel Kawczyski, Gillian Keegan, Esther McVey, John Redwood, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Grant Schapps, Matt Vickers, Gavin Williamson and Jacob Young).

Those who voted Yes

1 Alba
1 Alliance
Caroline Lucas
Diane Abbott
11 Lib Dems
2 Plaid Cymru
21 SNP
1 SDLP
George Galloway
8 Conservatives (Theresa May, Laura Farris (Safeguarding Minister), Caroline Mokes, Elliot Coburn, Jason McCartney, Luke Hall, Justin Tomlinson and Theresa Villiers (one of those suspended for trying to pressure Charlie Elphicke's judge)

and 121 Labour MP's.

But, included in those 121 MP's, even though she has not attended the weekly Labour meeting, is Natalie Elphicke.

That's right, Natalie Elphicke was the difference in getting this passed. No way would she have voted for this a few years ago when her former husband when he was accused.

 

[Scrote]

As a post-script to the Natalie Elphicke defection story.

Earlier this week there was a vote on a bill going through Parliament to suspend MP's accused of serious violent or sexual offences.

The bill was to address issues of serious wrong doing in the House of Commons, improve the culture around the place as a result, but most importantly to safeguard victims.

The bill was introduced by the leader of the house, Penny Mordaunt, based on recommendations from the House of Commons Commission. Currently party whips decide if and when an MP accused of an offence should be prevented from attending the parliamentary estate. The new plans mean that a panel, including senior MP's, will conduct a risk assessment when the Clerk of the House is informed by police that an MP has been arrested, and then the MP will be suspended from the grounds and building, though not sacked as an MP, nor prevented by voting by proxy.

Recently however, under pressure from right wing Conservative back benchers, Mordaunt brought forward a motion to water down the bill. The government wanted to amend the bill so that the threshold for the MP to be brought before the panel was when the Police charge an MP with an offence. The Conservative's argument centered on the unfairness on MP's who are often the subject of vexatious accusations, so they thought the bar should be once the MP was actually charged.

Labour MP Jess Philips and Lib Dem MP Wendy Chamberlain tabled an amendment to restore the bar to arrest. Their counter argument was that the bar is quite high just for the police to arrest someone, but the most important point was to safeguard accusers and thousands of staff. If the bar is when someone is charged, since less than 1% of cases result in charges actually being brought, accusers would most likely think 'what's the point?'

The Labour/Lib Dem amendment was passed in a 170-169 vote. So by just one vote.

It was a free vote, however the breakdown of the 169 who voted No was

1 Lib Dem
2 Independents (Andrew Bridgen, Bob Stewart)
166 Conservatives (including Mordaunt, Steve Baker, Miriam Cates, Brendan Clarke-Smith, James Cleverly, Therese Coffey, Dehenna Davison, David Davis, Michelle Donelan, IDS, Tobias Ellwood, Liam Fox, Mark Francois, Peter Gibson, Jonathan Gullis, Greg Hands, Mark Harper, Bernard Jenkins, Robert Jenrick, Daniel Kawczyski, Gillian Keegan, Esther McVey, John Redwood, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Grant Schapps, Matt Vickers, Gavin Williamson and Jacob Young).

Those who voted Yes

1 Alba
1 Alliance
Caroline Lucas
Diane Abbott
11 Lib Dems
2 Plaid Cymru
21 SNP
1 SDLP
George Galloway
8 Conservatives (Theresa May, Laura Farris (Safeguarding Minister), Caroline Mokes, Elliot Coburn, Jason McCartney, Luke Hall, Justin Tomlinson and Theresa Villiers (one of those suspended for trying to pressure Charlie Elphicke's judge)

and 121 Labour MP's.

But, included in those 121 MP's, even though she has not attended the weekly Labour meeting, is Natalie Elphicke.

That's right, Natalie Elphicke was the difference in getting this passed. No way would she have voted for this a few years ago when her former husband when he was accused.

I'm not sure what that has got to do with her defection though. Assuming she was sincere in her statements about her former husband, I'd have expected her to vote Yes, no matter what her party allegiance was. Unless you're saying that she was lying?