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

viv_andersons_nana said:
Did Starmer and his team consider how welcoming this lying, racist sack of sh*t would make female Labour MPs and voters feel considering she wrote an article for The Sun saying the victims of his sexual assault were lying?

And the arrogance of those on here and elsewhere saying it’ll all be forgotten about in a week, well yeah for you it may well be but for those affected by the actions of the Elphickes it might leave a slightly different taste. But who cares about trivialities like that when you’re trying to score cheap points in the press, eh.
Click to expand...
People have different opinions, I’m not sure it makes them arrogant or needing a lecture from yourself (which could be considered arrogant).

It’s fine if you don’t agree but many see this as another nail in the Tory coffin and may help to make them unelectable for a very long time.

You don’t have to agree with every action and comment of all MPs to vote for the wider party. Plus she won’t actually be a Labour MP very long at all.

Some clearly dislike Starmer and the Labour Party on this board. That’s also fine and obviously you can vote elsewhere but the polls and recent local results don’t indicate the wider electorate agree with this view.
 
Alzi said:
People have different opinions, I’m not sure it makes them arrogant or needing a lecture from yourself (which could be considered arrogant).

It’s fine if you don’t agree but many see this as another nail in the Tory coffin and may help to make them unelectable for a very long time.

You don’t have to agree with every action and comment of all MPs to vote for the wider party. Plus she won’t actually be a Labour MP very long at all.

Some clearly dislike Starmer and the Labour Party on this board. That’s also fine and obviously you can vote elsewhere but the polls and recent local results don’t indicate the wider electorate agree with this view.
Click to expand...
My question was whether anyone in Starmer’s group had stopped to think of the implications of accepting her into the party considering some of the things she has said and done.

Not only has this woman got an absolutely appalling voting record, she also has a track record for accusing victims of sexual assault of lying.

In my opinion it is absolutely arrogant to dismiss or fail to consider the concerns of those on the end of the Elphickes’ actions and female Labour MPs and voters in general. It isn’t as simple as it all being over in a week for some people.

It’s not about ‘liking’ Keir Starmer or the Labour Party or not. It’s about wondering whether this latest move is the right thing to do or not. Personally I think it’s abhorrent but that’s just me.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
My question was whether anyone in Starmer’s group had stopped to think of the implications of accepting her into the party considering some of the things she has said and done.

Not only has this woman got an absolutely appalling voting record, she also has a track record for accusing victims of sexual assault of lying.

In my opinion it is absolutely arrogant to dismiss or fail to consider the concerns of those on the end of the Elphickes’ actions and female Labour MPs and voters in general. It isn’t as simple as it all being over in a week for some people.

It’s not about ‘liking’ Keir Starmer or the Labour Party or not. It’s about wondering whether this latest move is the right thing to do or not. Personally I think it’s abhorrent but that’s just me.
Click to expand...
Fully agree she is a pretty vile person. Personally I'd have been equally happy for Starmer to have sent her packing but I can see why he made the decision he did, at the time he did, and the damage it does to the tories. If she was wanting to stand as a Labour MP at the next election I think the wider fallout would have been more significant, rightly or wrongly.

As awful as some of her comments are, some of her wider policy views are actually probably more aligned to Labour particularly around housing.

I must admit to having a bit of a chuckle about this post from the tories.

IMG_3589.jpeg
 
She is an odious, morally corrupt and horribly inept politician and person. Part of me is annoyed they've let her in, but then I remind myself that she is standing down anyway, she's isn't really "in", this is simply an exercise to embarrass the government. I'm considering this an "enemy of my enemy is a friend" agreement on both Labour and Elphicke's side. It's a short term transactional agreement. 12 months she will be arguing that Labour's policies are bunk and only the right can resolve the economy etc. etc......from the sidelines of course :ROFLMAO: and Starmer and Rayner will consider her an odious failed politician.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
My question was whether anyone in Starmer’s group had stopped to think of the implications of accepting her into the party considering some of the things she has said and done.
Click to expand...

They absolutely will have thought long and hard about this. None of them will have liked her.

Like most things in politics there are upsides and consequences that are not so good. You have to weigh these things up.

A bit like when you decide to engage with members of terrorist organisations. You know when you do that there are going to be downsides.
 
Alzi said:
People have different opinions, I’m not sure it makes them arrogant or needing a lecture from yourself (which could be considered arrogant).

It’s fine if you don’t agree but many see this as another nail in the Tory coffin and may help to make them unelectable for a very long time.

You don’t have to agree with every action and comment of all MPs to vote for the wider party. Plus she won’t actually be a Labour MP very long at all.

Some clearly dislike Starmer and the Labour Party on this board. That’s also fine and obviously you can vote elsewhere but the polls and recent local results don’t indicate the wider electorate agree with this view.
Click to expand...

All true, but it should be possible to discuss differences of opinion regarding strategies or things which make some Labour voters uncomfortable, without it all being dismissed as simply ‘Starmer bashing’. It’s a label that gets wheeled out every time anybody dares question the actions of Labour these days, as if it somehow means any point being made can just be ignored.
It’s weird.
We all support Boro. We are also allowed to discuss what we perceive as failings in tactics, poor management decisions, team selections, poor player performances etc. Doesn’t mean we don’t support Boro still.
That’s a normal part of following a football team.
But traditional Labour voters question anything that Labour do at the minute, raise the slightest hint of query as to whether it’s the right call, and you are labelled as some kind of left wing Momentum activist who simply doesn’t see the big picture, or you are Starmer bashing so can be ignored, or worse still, you actually want the Tories to win.
 
FabioPorkpie said:
All true, but it should be possible to discuss differences of opinion regarding strategies or things which make some Labour voters uncomfortable, without it all being dismissed as simply ‘Starmer bashing’. It’s a label that gets wheeled out every time anybody dares question the actions of Labour these days, as if it somehow means any point being made can just be ignored.
It’s weird.
We all support Boro. We are also allowed to discuss what we perceive as failings in tactics, poor management decisions, team selections, poor player performances etc. Doesn’t mean we don’t support Boro still.
That’s a normal part of following a football team.
But traditional Labour voters question anything that Labour do at the minute, raise the slightest hint of query as to whether it’s the right call, and you are labelled as some kind of left wing Momentum activist who simply doesn’t see the big picture, or you are Starmer bashing so can be ignored, or worse still, you actually want the Tories to win.
Click to expand...
Agree - it'd be a pretty boring place if we all agreed with each other. Other forums are available if people enjoy echo chambers.

Politics in my opinion, particularly since Brexit, has become far too divisise. That is what the facists want, a divided nation makes it easier for charlatans like Johnson etc to pull the wool over people's eyes. It should be ok for people to have different opinions and debate these in a respectful manner regardless of your political persusaion. Hopefully some grown up politics come back to Westminster soon and that will filter down.
 
BoroMart said:
She is an odious, morally corrupt and horribly inept politician and person. Part of me is annoyed they've let her in, but then I remind myself that she is standing down anyway, she's isn't really "in", this is simply an exercise to embarrass the government. I'm considering this an "enemy of my enemy is a friend" agreement on both Labour and Elphicke's side. It's a short term transactional agreement. 12 months she will be arguing that Labour's policies are bunk and only the right can resolve the economy etc. etc......from the sidelines of course :ROFLMAO: and Starmer and Rayner will consider her an odious failed politician.
Click to expand...
It's the fact that Starmer welcomed her and attempted to gain politically for her shift across the house. Where does it stop? he's been played and now scored an own goal
 
Wiseman_Vaughn said:
It's the fact that Starmer welcomed her and attempted to gain politically for her shift across the house. Where does it stop? he's been played and now scored an own goal
Click to expand...

He hasn't been played. come on fella, he knew exactly what he was doing, had all the power. It's a political calculation.

Look at the further embarrassment, chaos and arguments it has caused in the Conservative Party.

The public do not elect divided, chaotic, political parties. This is a move to keep them that way.
 
Wiseman_Vaughn said:
It's the fact that Starmer welcomed her and attempted to gain politically for her shift across the house. Where does it stop? he's been played and now scored an own goal
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he's been 'played', the tories clearly didn't know anything about this, it wasn't some dastardly plan that he stumbled into. It was a risky gamble, some think he failed, some think it was a great way to weaken Sunak. Ultimately there are pros and cons and it's probably impossibly to quantify the reality
 
Last edited:
BoroMart said:
I'm not sure he's been 'played', the tories clearly didn't know anything about this, it wasn't some dastardly plan that he stumbled into. It was a risky gamble, some thing he failed, some think it was a great way to weaken Sunak. Ultimately there are pros and cons and it's probably impossibly to quantify the reality
Click to expand...
i m ean played by her. She has her own agenda that she aims to benefit from.... if not why did she do it? Isn't she standing down at the election??? I suppose she could genuinely be pi**ed off with Sunak's Illegal immigration policy
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
This isn't something he could instigate and initiate, only accept. He may have been involved in the timing, but little more.
Click to expand...

Of course he couldn't instigate it, but he absolutely was involved in accepting and the timing.

Alistair Campbell covered this well in a recent 'The rest is Politics' podcast after the previous defection. It is the same playbook.
 
While I can see that clever political points have been scored and Sunak further damaged, I just can't reconcile myself to the fact that this vile woman with her many horrible public pronouncements is welcome, while Abbott and Corbyn are not. The party of which I was once a proud member moves further away from me by the day.
 
HarryVegas said:
I just can't reconcile myself to the fact that this vile woman with her many horrible public pronouncements is welcome, while Abbott and Corbyn are not.
Click to expand...
Absolutely - It's the hypocrisy of it!! He can align himself with her right wing vioews but not the left wing views of Corbyn and Abbott
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
A far better statement would have been to turn her down on principle. "Get back over there, we have standards."
Click to expand...

Agree with that 100%
viv_andersons_nana said:
Did Starmer and his team consider how welcoming this lying, racist sack of sh*t would make female Labour MPs and voters feel considering she wrote an article for The Sun saying the victims of his sexual assault were lying?

And the arrogance of those on here and elsewhere saying it’ll all be forgotten about in a week, well yeah for you it may well be but for those affected by the actions of the Elphickes it might leave a slightly different taste. But who cares about trivialities like that when you’re trying to score cheap points in the press, eh.
Click to expand...

It’s more arrogant to think they haven’t thought it through.
Of course they have - they just came to a different conclusion to you.
I don’t like the reasons but I understand them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top