If she is kept quiet, working on 'policy' rather than spouting forth in public she will soon be 'yesterday's woman'.
Kent has a number of motormouth MPs, Mrs Elphicke is near the top. It will be tough for her.
I don't think Monty's ever going to lead his country.It sometimes ends badly for cricketers going into politics. Perhaps Monty has had a word with Imran Khan.
Imran Khan is a very brave man by my estimation, and it's probably only his standing worldwide that has saved him, so far, from assassination.
The Greater Manchester Police have a history of political interference dating back to when James Anderton was their Chief Constable and John Stalker was his deputy: two people poles apart in character, temperament, ways of looking at the world and how to police. Anderton was a disgrace to the police service, openly espousing his right wing 'Moral Rearmament' views, but flourished after Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government was elected in 1979. In view of his extreme anti-gay views I wonder what he later thought when quite a few of that government were shown to be 'secretly' gay or bisexual themselves!
There appears to be 2 issues.
It seems there may be three:
www.independent.co.uk
Yes I recall CC Anderton (as you say, a disgrace to the uniform) and DCC Stalker. I particularly recall Mr Stalker's enquiry into shootings in Belfast which resulted in a most unsavoury affair (and CC Anderton's involvement - or rather Pontius Pilate attitude - when Stalker ran into difficulty). I remember reading his autobiography "Stalker".
Elphicke already causing hassle for Labour why on earth Starmer accepted her is beyond me
Only the Conservative Party could imagine that they could fling mud around on this subject without answering the obvious question as to why they did nothing about it when the lobbying took place. Funny how long it took for their moral outrage to kick in. Do they seriously believe this incident shows them in a good light when they had been completely happy to be party to a cover up until she defected?
Of course but most of the electorate will have never heard of her but will just see the Tory biased rags along with the BBC shining the spotlight on Labour as those its them.
I am a little more optimistic. Evidence from opinion polls and the local elections suggests that the Conservatives and their supporters in parts of the media are finding it increasingly hard to land punches. Hence the kind of desperate nonsense that we are seeing at the moment. It's hard to imagine those who have deserted the Tories in the last couple of years now rushing back to them on the basis of these rather pathetic attempts to criticise an individual who committed an 'offence' when she was a Conservative MP!
I'm not too keen on the ''Dark Forces'' description, simply because although it may well be true, the phrase will get hurled back as supposed paranoia by those countering it. I actually watch quite a number of You Tube videos of daily ''goings-on'' in the GM area and I see disturbing aspects of police behaviour there, including many cases where no action is taken when it's apparent laws have been broken with impunity. There does seem to be an 'official line' on many things which may well be not in the public interest, which must be taken at the highest level. The decision by the police to 'look into' the petty allegations against Rayner must also have come from the highest level. I am beginning to think that perhaps Starmer, maybe even Burnham, are not too vexed about this, which is a very worrying thought as far as I am concerned.
Not just innocent, the impertinence of even hinting that a Conservative MP has committed a wrongdoing should render that person subject to a lifetime gagging order and a damned good horsewhipping, not necessarily in that order.
The trouble is that I suspect Sir Starmer is, at best, neutral about Rayner's position, and might be quite happy to see her go. She should never have fallen into the trap set by the Tories and seconded by Starmer of saying she would step down if the corrupted local police force took it further. Still, he's alright Jack, he's got Noxious Nat instead.Indeed. Rayner is evil and must be locked up, but Sir Charles Fortescue-Pemberton-Smythe, Tory MP for Dorset East (succeeding the esteemed Sir Michael Take) and well known tax dodger who has done far worse than anything Rayner may have allegedly done: well "it's not a hanging offence, is it?" "He's just being picked on by jealous whinging liberal remoaner lefties!"
Ridiculous comment. I am a lifelong Labour supporter but garbage like that irritates me.Indeed. Rayner is evil and must be locked up, but Sir Charles Fortescue-Pemberton-Smythe, Tory MP for Dorset East (succeeding the esteemed Sir Michael Take) and well known tax dodger who has done far worse than anything Rayner may have allegedly done: well "it's not a hanging offence, is it?" "He's just being picked on by jealous whinging liberal remoaner lefties!"
Not if the police "took it further" but rather if it she is found to have committed a crime.
Whats Rachel Reeves done now?
With Beergate, they already pulled the trick of countering a malicious accusation by promising to resign if there was anything in it, knowing full well that there wasn't and thus ending up stronger at the end of the day. As they are apparently taking the same line with this issue, and with a cautious lawyer in charge, I'd expect the same to happen in the fullness of time (but maybe not before the election). If there actually is something to hide then more than one person in Labour has been monumentally stupid in trying to do so.
