maltaseagull
Well-known member
My view is that anyone who changes parties in the house should be out of the house until / unless voted back in as a candidate for their new party.
[Politics] Natalie Elphic defects to labour
- Thread starter Harry Wilson's tackle
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,698
Labour don't need this sort of thing to win the next election, while she is clearly unprincipled and a political opportunist.
It's embarrassing for her, embarrassing for the Tories, embarrassing for Labour and embarrassing for British politics. What a grubby business.
It's embarrassing for her, embarrassing for the Tories, embarrassing for Labour and embarrassing for British politics. What a grubby business.
Just about sums up the selfishness and morals of a growing number of MPs. If she disagrees with Tory policies then fine, resign, but don’t join the party that you have criticised.
What a message it would have sent if Starmer had said, no we don’t want you in our party.
What a message it would have sent if Starmer had said, no we don’t want you in our party.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,470
Before those in donkey jackets with a Billy Bragg LP under their arm start wetting themselves, she isn't standing for parliament next election.
It's a stunt to wind up the Tories (quite a weird one all the same) but it's worked. Very difficult for them to complain she was always a bit of a pinko.
It's a stunt to wind up the Tories (quite a weird one all the same) but it's worked. Very difficult for them to complain she was always a bit of a pinko.
- Thread starter
- #107
There are some explanations offered, the most plausible being that Starmer knows she will stand down at the next election (the Labour candidate who has been selected will be their candidate). Consequently her defection does not disrespect the local labour party. Nor does it or signal her desire to save her sorry arse and MP's salary when the Tories are defenestrated. This leaves us with the message that even a right wing tory considers Labour to be more likely to deliver competence. This sends a message to those on the right of centre who have been toying with lending Labour their vote.
The downside of course is that everything she has stood for and done, stinks to high heaven of opportunism at best and naivety at worst.
Mind you, that's how I tend to view the motivation of many Tories, especially those still intent on marching to the ballot with their blue rosette intact.
It is what it is.
- Thread starter
- #108
I was hoping nobody would notice.
(If I were Bob Monkhouse I might quip "and nobody did!". But I'm not Bob Monkhouse
)
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,470
It may come and bite Starmer in the arse, but I suspect their research has shown that a divided Conservative party are stuffed.
So divided that even one of the Atilla The Hunt brigade walked across the floor.
It's so much better than the MDF "comedy" stunts the Lib Dems keep playing.
- Thread starter
- #110
Yes.
I don't like it, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.
Watching Sunk fume is modest compensation.
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
nicko31
Well-known member
I hear you but she still has the potential to be a liability, she's a bit out of control
- Jul 10, 2003
- 26,062
If I'm honest, I'm surprised you got it so quickly
But on the subject of the thread, she hasn't really joined the Labour Party, she's not going to be a Labour Party candidate and she'll be shipped off to a swivel eyed loon rest home in the next couple of months.
She wanted to give Sunak a kicking on her way out and Starmer thought he would join in, simple as that. What was it about chip paper
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Thanks for the clarification and help.If I'm honest, I'm surprised you got it so quickly
But on the subject of the thread, she hasn't really joined the Labour Party, she's not going to be a Labour Party candidate and she'll be shipped off to a swivel eyed loon rest home in the next couple of months.
She wanted to give Sunak a kicking and Starmer thought he would join in. What was it about chip paper
God only knows where we'd be without such lucidity of sagacity and insight.
Randy McNob
Now go home and get your f#cking Shinebox
- Jun 13, 2020
- 4,512
They now have only 344 seats so that 80 seat majority is now just 19
since many of his MPs defy him Sunak would struggle to get anything through parliament
- Jul 10, 2003
- 26,062
Well Thank You. I really wonder whether you appreciate what it is like when you actually manage to breakthrough and explain the blindingly obvious, particularly to those who obviously struggle with simple logic.
I'll now have a lovely satisfying night knowing that I may have helped turned a simple soul from the dark side
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
De rien.Well Thank You. I really wonder whether you appreciate what it is like when you actually manage to breakthrough and explain the blindingly obvious, particularly to those who obviously struggle with simple logic.
I'll now have a lovely satisfying night knowing that I may have helped turned a simple soul from the dark side
I'm just pleased your getting your jollies in a more respectable way de nos jours.
Gabbiano
Well-known member
Couldn't Labour just have publicised that they rejected her request to join the party? Or is that some confidentiality/data protection concern.
That way she would look stupid, the Tories would look stupid and Labour wouldn't have embraced one of the most detestable MPs in parliament as one of their own.
How much is one more Labour vote in the Commons really worth at this point?
That way she would look stupid, the Tories would look stupid and Labour wouldn't have embraced one of the most detestable MPs in parliament as one of their own.
How much is one more Labour vote in the Commons really worth at this point?
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Think you'll find it's 38.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
Is it that you're advocating the expense and the commitment of a by-election? Or that the constituents of Dover are deprived of a representative?