Since the voting system changed I haven’t bet heavily on Eurovision other than to occasionally lay Le Royaume-Uni. I cannot see any value on current prices but I will enjoy the annual bit of European unity and cultural enrichment.
On the eve of her husband’s criminal trial for sex offences in July 2020, Natalie Elphicke arrived at the parliamentary office of Robert Buckland, who as lord chancellor and justice secretary was responsible for upholding the rule of law.
Elphicke had secured the meeting through Sir Mark Spencer, the Conservative Party chief whip. She assured him she did not wish to discuss the plight of her partner, Charlie, whom she had recently succeeded as MP for Dover and whose innocence she had spent years publicly protesting even as several women made claims of sexual assault to the police. She wished to discuss only some general concerns about the justice system.
The opposite was true.
Immediately after entering Buckland’s room on the ministerial corridor, she turned to the topic of her husband: the man who, in a newspaper article three years earlier, she had described as a victim of “injustice heaped upon injustice” having been “thrown to the wolves”.
To the shock of those present, Elphicke, 53, lobbied Buckland to interfere in the upcoming hearing of the case. She told him she felt it was unfair that his case was the first to be heard at Southwark crown court after lockdown and that was being overseen by Lady Justice Whipple, who, as presiding judge of the southeastern circuit, was one of the most senior judges in the land.
Her comments were interpreted by one person in the room as an attempt to have the case moved to a lower-profile court to spare her husband public scrutiny. Another saw it as an effort to replace Whipple, who Elphicke apparently felt would be overly-strict. It is claimed that she spoke with an air of entitlement and as though Buckland should intervene to stop him being “singled out”.
Buckland immediately objected, insisting the conversation could go no further, and declined to help. He feared it would be “outrageous” for him to interfere with the administration of justice by helping a fellow Conservative MP or her husband, also a former colleague. A key constitutional doctrine is that there should be a separation of powers between the principal institutions of state — including parliament and the judiciary.
The MP for South Swindon said today: “She was told in no uncertain terms that it would have been completely inappropriate to speak to the judge about the trial at all.”
A Labour Party spokesman said: “Natalie Elphicke totally rejects that characterisation of the meeting. If Robert Buckland had any genuine concerns about the meeting, then he should have raised them at the time, rather than making claims to the newspapers now Natalie has chosen to join the Labour Party.”
On the eve of her husband’s criminal trial for sex offences in July 2020, Natalie Elphicke arrived at the parliamentary office of Robert Buckland, who as lord chancellor and justice secretary was responsible for upholding the rule of law.
Elphicke had secured the meeting through Sir Mark Spencer, the Conservative Party chief whip. She assured him she did not wish to discuss the plight of her partner, Charlie, whom she had recently succeeded as MP for Dover and whose innocence she had spent years publicly protesting even as several women made claims of sexual assault to the police. She wished to discuss only some general concerns about the justice system.
The opposite was true.
Immediately after entering Buckland’s room on the ministerial corridor, she turned to the topic of her husband: the man who, in a newspaper article three years earlier, she had described as a victim of “injustice heaped upon injustice” having been “thrown to the wolves”.
To the shock of those present, Elphicke, 53, lobbied Buckland to interfere in the upcoming hearing of the case. She told him she felt it was unfair that his case was the first to be heard at Southwark crown court after lockdown and that was being overseen by Lady Justice Whipple, who, as presiding judge of the southeastern circuit, was one of the most senior judges in the land.
Her comments were interpreted by one person in the room as an attempt to have the case moved to a lower-profile court to spare her husband public scrutiny. Another saw it as an effort to replace Whipple, who Elphicke apparently felt would be overly-strict. It is claimed that she spoke with an air of entitlement and as though Buckland should intervene to stop him being “singled out”.
Buckland immediately objected, insisting the conversation could go no further, and declined to help. He feared it would be “outrageous” for him to interfere with the administration of justice by helping a fellow Conservative MP or her husband, also a former colleague. A key constitutional doctrine is that there should be a separation of powers between the principal institutions of state — including parliament and the judiciary.
The MP for South Swindon said today: “She was told in no uncertain terms that it would have been completely inappropriate to speak to the judge about the trial at all.”
A Labour Party spokesman said: “Natalie Elphicke totally rejects that characterisation of the meeting. If Robert Buckland had any genuine concerns about the meeting, then he should have raised them at the time, rather than making claims to the newspapers now Natalie has chosen to join the Labour Party.”
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Israel is drawn 5 and generally the early slots do badly as by the end, after people have listened to all of them in order to make a voting decision, they have forgotten the early songs. The new early voting might help here.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak What could go wrong for Keir Starmer? A lot! Last week’s success in the local elections doesn’t mean it’s a done deal 👇🏼
I don't suppose it will but the Elphicke mistake could stay being a story for a bit, and the longer it is around, the bigger this completely unforced error becomes. It is very surprising really. The two million Tory voters he needs are not voting Tory because of people like Elphicke.
10 more mistakes like that, a bit of bad luck, stick Burgon on the front bench, SNP recover a bit, Tories release a few choice stories and some media rally round Sunak. It could all change to the point where Labour only win an extra 100 seats.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak What could go wrong for Keir Starmer? A lot! Last week’s success in the local elections doesn’t mean it’s a done deal 👇🏼
I don't suppose it will but the Elphicke mistake could stay being a story for a bit, and the longer it is around, the bigger this completely unforced error becomes. It is very surprising really. The two million Tory voters he needs are not voting Tory because of people like Elphicke.
10 more mistakes like that, a bit of bad luck, stick Burgon on the front bench, SNP recover a bit, Tories release a few choice stories and some media rally round Sunak. It could all change to the point where Labour only win an extra 100 seats.
IMHO it is by far Starmer's biggest unforced error.
I guess it all sounded fantastic in a sweaty room with shit coffee late in the evening talking it all through.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
Why wouldn't they coalesce around Croatia as the favourite?
On the eve of her husband’s criminal trial for sex offences in July 2020, Natalie Elphicke arrived at the parliamentary office of Robert Buckland, who as lord chancellor and justice secretary was responsible for upholding the rule of law.
Elphicke had secured the meeting through Sir Mark Spencer, the Conservative Party chief whip. She assured him she did not wish to discuss the plight of her partner, Charlie, whom she had recently succeeded as MP for Dover and whose innocence she had spent years publicly protesting even as several women made claims of sexual assault to the police. She wished to discuss only some general concerns about the justice system.
The opposite was true.
Immediately after entering Buckland’s room on the ministerial corridor, she turned to the topic of her husband: the man who, in a newspaper article three years earlier, she had described as a victim of “injustice heaped upon injustice” having been “thrown to the wolves”.
To the shock of those present, Elphicke, 53, lobbied Buckland to interfere in the upcoming hearing of the case. She told him she felt it was unfair that his case was the first to be heard at Southwark crown court after lockdown and that was being overseen by Lady Justice Whipple, who, as presiding judge of the southeastern circuit, was one of the most senior judges in the land.
Her comments were interpreted by one person in the room as an attempt to have the case moved to a lower-profile court to spare her husband public scrutiny. Another saw it as an effort to replace Whipple, who Elphicke apparently felt would be overly-strict. It is claimed that she spoke with an air of entitlement and as though Buckland should intervene to stop him being “singled out”.
Buckland immediately objected, insisting the conversation could go no further, and declined to help. He feared it would be “outrageous” for him to interfere with the administration of justice by helping a fellow Conservative MP or her husband, also a former colleague. A key constitutional doctrine is that there should be a separation of powers between the principal institutions of state — including parliament and the judiciary.
The MP for South Swindon said today: “She was told in no uncertain terms that it would have been completely inappropriate to speak to the judge about the trial at all.”
A Labour Party spokesman said: “Natalie Elphicke totally rejects that characterisation of the meeting. If Robert Buckland had any genuine concerns about the meeting, then he should have raised them at the time, rather than making claims to the newspapers now Natalie has chosen to join the Labour Party.”
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak What could go wrong for Keir Starmer? A lot! Last week’s success in the local elections doesn’t mean it’s a done deal 👇🏼
I don't suppose it will but the Elphicke mistake could stay being a story for a bit, and the longer it is around, the bigger this completely unforced error becomes. It is very surprising really. The two million Tory voters he needs are not voting Tory because of people like Elphicke.
10 more mistakes like that, a bit of bad luck, stick Burgon on the front bench, SNP recover a bit, Tories release a few choice stories and some media rally round Sunak. It could all change to the point where Labour only win an extra 100 seats.
IMHO it is by far Starmer's biggest unforced error.
I guess it all sounded fantastic in a sweaty room with shit coffee late in the evening talking it all through.
But it is a crap decision.
There is no gain imho whatsoever.
Maybe it takes a Tory to spot what a brilliant move it is.
I think it's his best yet. He's entirely disingenuous of course but also ruthless.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak What could go wrong for Keir Starmer? A lot! Last week’s success in the local elections doesn’t mean it’s a done deal 👇🏼
I don't suppose it will but the Elphicke mistake could stay being a story for a bit, and the longer it is around, the bigger this completely unforced error becomes. It is very surprising really. The two million Tory voters he needs are not voting Tory because of people like Elphicke.
10 more mistakes like that, a bit of bad luck, stick Burgon on the front bench, SNP recover a bit, Tories release a few choice stories and some media rally round Sunak. It could all change to the point where Labour only win an extra 100 seats.
IMHO it is by far Starmer's biggest unforced error.
I guess it all sounded fantastic in a sweaty room with shit coffee late in the evening talking it all through.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak What could go wrong for Keir Starmer? A lot! Last week’s success in the local elections doesn’t mean it’s a done deal 👇🏼
I don't suppose it will but the Elphicke mistake could stay being a story for a bit, and the longer it is around, the bigger this completely unforced error becomes. It is very surprising really. The two million Tory voters he needs are not voting Tory because of people like Elphicke.
10 more mistakes like that, a bit of bad luck, stick Burgon on the front bench, SNP recover a bit, Tories release a few choice stories and some media rally round Sunak. It could all change to the point where Labour only win an extra 100 seats.
Elphicke is reminiscent of Gordon Brown inviting Mrs Thatcher for tea. An unforced error probably inspired by Lord Mandelson. It alienates Labour supporters and does not attract, as you say, moderate Tories.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has rewritten advice suggesting misgendering your partner or refusing them money for gender surgery constitutes domestic abuse.
The CPS has ditched and redrafted the advice for prosecutors after criticism from women’s campaigners who claimed it was “detrimental to women’s trust and confidence” in the service.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
FWIW, I have laid Israel as well.
Me too. I'm stopping now as I have done 4k and the wife will be stressed if she finds out I stand to lose 16k.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak What could go wrong for Keir Starmer? A lot! Last week’s success in the local elections doesn’t mean it’s a done deal 👇🏼
She's right of course. It could. But it won't, no matter how much she might wish for it.
We've finally got a partisan editorial stance from the BBC. It was inevitable after CeeGeebies have been allowed to shill for a political party/ cause without real sanction.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
FWIW, I have laid Israel as well.
Me too. I'm stopping now as I have done 4k and the wife will be stressed if she finds out I stand to lose 16k.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
FWIW, I have laid Israel as well.
Me too. I'm stopping now as I have done 4k and the wife will be stressed if she finds out I stand to lose 16k.
That's hardcore for something as subjective as Eurovision, particularly as form and quality don't count for ****.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
FWIW, I have laid Israel as well.
Me too. I'm stopping now as I have done 4k and the wife will be stressed if she finds out I stand to lose 16k.
That's hardcore for something as subjective as Eurovision, particularly as form and quality don't count for ****.
It's stressing me out and I'm not even part of his family.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
FWIW, I have laid Israel as well.
Me too. I'm stopping now as I have done 4k and the wife will be stressed if she finds out I stand to lose 16k.
Well, good luck. Quick check: can you cover the loss?
£3 for 20 votes for Israel. I've spent £3 on a lot worse stuff... I think it's 60 votes from this household, two UK numbers and one Swiss phone number.
Laura Kuenssberg @bbclaurak What could go wrong for Keir Starmer? A lot! Last week’s success in the local elections doesn’t mean it’s a done deal 👇🏼
I don't suppose it will but the Elphicke mistake could stay being a story for a bit, and the longer it is around, the bigger this completely unforced error becomes. It is very surprising really. The two million Tory voters he needs are not voting Tory because of people like Elphicke.
10 more mistakes like that, a bit of bad luck, stick Burgon on the front bench, SNP recover a bit, Tories release a few choice stories and some media rally round Sunak. It could all change to the point where Labour only win an extra 100 seats.
Elphicke is reminiscent of Gordon Brown inviting Mrs Thatcher for tea. An unforced error probably inspired by Lord Mandelson. It alienates Labour supporters and does not attract, as you say, moderate Tories.
I agree it alienates Labour supporters BUT it undercuts Rishi's small boats policy too.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
That's why I'm on them. I wish I'd done the 66 though. By the time I thought about it they were 5.
On the eve of her husband’s criminal trial for sex offences in July 2020, Natalie Elphicke arrived at the parliamentary office of Robert Buckland, who as lord chancellor and justice secretary was responsible for upholding the rule of law.
Elphicke had secured the meeting through Sir Mark Spencer, the Conservative Party chief whip. She assured him she did not wish to discuss the plight of her partner, Charlie, whom she had recently succeeded as MP for Dover and whose innocence she had spent years publicly protesting even as several women made claims of sexual assault to the police. She wished to discuss only some general concerns about the justice system.
The opposite was true.
Immediately after entering Buckland’s room on the ministerial corridor, she turned to the topic of her husband: the man who, in a newspaper article three years earlier, she had described as a victim of “injustice heaped upon injustice” having been “thrown to the wolves”.
To the shock of those present, Elphicke, 53, lobbied Buckland to interfere in the upcoming hearing of the case. She told him she felt it was unfair that his case was the first to be heard at Southwark crown court after lockdown and that was being overseen by Lady Justice Whipple, who, as presiding judge of the southeastern circuit, was one of the most senior judges in the land.
Her comments were interpreted by one person in the room as an attempt to have the case moved to a lower-profile court to spare her husband public scrutiny. Another saw it as an effort to replace Whipple, who Elphicke apparently felt would be overly-strict. It is claimed that she spoke with an air of entitlement and as though Buckland should intervene to stop him being “singled out”.
Buckland immediately objected, insisting the conversation could go no further, and declined to help. He feared it would be “outrageous” for him to interfere with the administration of justice by helping a fellow Conservative MP or her husband, also a former colleague. A key constitutional doctrine is that there should be a separation of powers between the principal institutions of state — including parliament and the judiciary.
The MP for South Swindon said today: “She was told in no uncertain terms that it would have been completely inappropriate to speak to the judge about the trial at all.”
A Labour Party spokesman said: “Natalie Elphicke totally rejects that characterisation of the meeting. If Robert Buckland had any genuine concerns about the meeting, then he should have raised them at the time, rather than making claims to the newspapers now Natalie has chosen to join the Labour Party.”
Seems a bit petty, and too nakedly self interested of the Tories to only leak this story now
On one hand, the whips had no choice. Threatening to dish the dirt on errant MPs is one of the tools in their armoury, and you have to be prepared to carry out threats you make, or you lose credibility for the next encounter.
On the other, the Elphicke farago shows the limits of the Whips' Black Book. If her behaviour was really that awful, why did the Conservative party do nothing about it before Wednesday lunchtime?
And whilst it's unlikely that NE has brought many voters across from Conservative to Labour with her, depressing the Conservative vote (to either Reform or seeing what's on telly) is the next best thing for Team Keir.
It seems the USA has already built a pier on the Gaza coast, at one end of the Netzarim corridor dividing the north and south that's already been taken over by the Israeli military. (And the Israelis are attacking in both north and south right now.) This map is from Al-Jazeera:
I wonder where on the island of Cyprus the detention camp will be located.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
FWIW, I have laid Israel as well.
Me too. I'm stopping now as I have done 4k and the wife will be stressed if she finds out I stand to lose 16k.
Luxembourg not awful. Particularly since it's not Juncker on stage tonight.
They’re going for douze points from France.
It's available at 1,000/1 - so I presume someone knows they've already lost, this isn't a clean fight - but I've still dropped £2 on it in case public voting surprises and they come in.
I'm noit entirely sure that's a counter-example, tbh
I question your judgement
I've just sat thru two episodes of the new Doctor Who and I'm now looking at a political betting website with people waging £16k on a song. If I retaliate with "well I question your questioning, hah!" and flounce off, we may enter a camp event horizon so dense that even glitter could not escape its grasp...
Luxembourg not awful. Particularly since it's not Juncker on stage tonight.
They’re going for douze points from France.
It's available at 1,000/1 - so I presume someone knows they've already lost, this isn't a clean fight - but I've still dropped £2 on it in case public voting surprises and they come in.
You do know there is betting on who comes last? It is a very thin market on Betfair though. Luxembourg are 6/1.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Surely though that is outweighed by the fact that there is no Palestinian entry, so anti-Israel votes have nowhere to coalesce. If everyone were to vote politically re Gaza, then Israel would still win even if only 1 in 20 votes were for Israel and the rest were evenly distributed among the other countries.
FWIW, I have laid Israel as well.
Me too. I'm stopping now as I have done 4k and the wife will be stressed if she finds out I stand to lose 16k.
Well, good luck. Quick check: can you cover the loss?
Yes I suppose so. I enjoy betting on these sort of things but I havent really enjoyed the Uk songs in recent years. As I child I loved Sandy Shaw's Puppet on a String.
On the eve of her husband’s criminal trial for sex offences in July 2020, Natalie Elphicke arrived at the parliamentary office of Robert Buckland, who as lord chancellor and justice secretary was responsible for upholding the rule of law.
Elphicke had secured the meeting through Sir Mark Spencer, the Conservative Party chief whip. She assured him she did not wish to discuss the plight of her partner, Charlie, whom she had recently succeeded as MP for Dover and whose innocence she had spent years publicly protesting even as several women made claims of sexual assault to the police. She wished to discuss only some general concerns about the justice system.
The opposite was true.
Immediately after entering Buckland’s room on the ministerial corridor, she turned to the topic of her husband: the man who, in a newspaper article three years earlier, she had described as a victim of “injustice heaped upon injustice” having been “thrown to the wolves”.
To the shock of those present, Elphicke, 53, lobbied Buckland to interfere in the upcoming hearing of the case. She told him she felt it was unfair that his case was the first to be heard at Southwark crown court after lockdown and that was being overseen by Lady Justice Whipple, who, as presiding judge of the southeastern circuit, was one of the most senior judges in the land.
Her comments were interpreted by one person in the room as an attempt to have the case moved to a lower-profile court to spare her husband public scrutiny. Another saw it as an effort to replace Whipple, who Elphicke apparently felt would be overly-strict. It is claimed that she spoke with an air of entitlement and as though Buckland should intervene to stop him being “singled out”.
Buckland immediately objected, insisting the conversation could go no further, and declined to help. He feared it would be “outrageous” for him to interfere with the administration of justice by helping a fellow Conservative MP or her husband, also a former colleague. A key constitutional doctrine is that there should be a separation of powers between the principal institutions of state — including parliament and the judiciary.
The MP for South Swindon said today: “She was told in no uncertain terms that it would have been completely inappropriate to speak to the judge about the trial at all.”
A Labour Party spokesman said: “Natalie Elphicke totally rejects that characterisation of the meeting. If Robert Buckland had any genuine concerns about the meeting, then he should have raised them at the time, rather than making claims to the newspapers now Natalie has chosen to join the Labour Party.”
Seems a bit petty, and too nakedly self interested of the Tories to only leak this story now
On one hand, the whips had no choice. Threatening to dish the dirt on errant MPs is one of the tools in their armoury, and you have to be prepared to carry out threats you make, or you lose credibility for the next encounter.
On the other, the Elphicke farago shows the limits of the Whips' Black Book. If her behaviour was really that awful, why did the Conservative party do nothing about it before Wednesday lunchtime?
And whilst it's unlikely that NE has brought many voters across from Conservative to Labour with her, depressing the Conservative vote (to either Reform or seeing what's on telly) is the next best thing for Team Keir.
I laid Labour again upon seeing Sir Keir’s interview this morning about Elphicke; he is so stiff & awkward that it’s not a 6/1 shot he messes up the campaign a la Theresa May
Comments
Elphicke had secured the meeting through Sir Mark Spencer, the Conservative Party chief whip. She assured him she did not wish to discuss the plight of her partner, Charlie, whom she had recently succeeded as MP for Dover and whose innocence she had spent years publicly protesting even as several women made claims of sexual assault to the police. She wished to discuss only some general concerns about the justice system.
The opposite was true.
Immediately after entering Buckland’s room on the ministerial corridor, she turned to the topic of her husband: the man who, in a newspaper article three years earlier, she had described as a victim of “injustice heaped upon injustice” having been “thrown to the wolves”.
To the shock of those present, Elphicke, 53, lobbied Buckland to interfere in the upcoming hearing of the case. She told him she felt it was unfair that his case was the first to be heard at Southwark crown court after lockdown and that was being overseen by Lady Justice Whipple, who, as presiding judge of the southeastern circuit, was one of the most senior judges in the land.
Her comments were interpreted by one person in the room as an attempt to have the case moved to a lower-profile court to spare her husband public scrutiny. Another saw it as an effort to replace Whipple, who Elphicke apparently felt would be overly-strict. It is claimed that she spoke with an air of entitlement and as though Buckland should intervene to stop him being “singled out”.
Buckland immediately objected, insisting the conversation could go no further, and declined to help. He feared it would be “outrageous” for him to interfere with the administration of justice by helping a fellow Conservative MP or her husband, also a former colleague. A key constitutional doctrine is that there should be a separation of powers between the principal institutions of state — including parliament and the judiciary.
The MP for South Swindon said today: “She was told in no uncertain terms that it would have been completely inappropriate to speak to the judge about the trial at all.”
A Labour Party spokesman said: “Natalie Elphicke totally rejects that characterisation of the meeting. If Robert Buckland had any genuine concerns about the meeting, then he should have raised them at the time, rather than making claims to the newspapers now Natalie has chosen to join the Labour Party.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/natalie-elphicke-lobbied-lord-chancellor-husband-charlie-kv68bvd7f
I've been going to them since I was 19, the music is awesome, the dancing even better. The booze is cheap.
I even ended up with my own fag hags as I was seen as an ally of the LGBT community.
https://eurovision.tv/app
I would rather watch paint dry
She's trying to get planning permission to convert a garage into flats that she owns in her constituency but locals have objected to her plans.
The Labour run council can overrule the local objections so defecting to Labour she thinks they will support one of their own.
I had a difficult job explaining all-night I wasn't gay, and the vibe was a bit off as a result.
Good times!!
Maaaaaaaaate
WTF was he thinking?
Mail are claiming it is all down to Sue Gray but I can't read the paywalled detail of that story.
Might be a good song but my guess is anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism (take your pick) wins out in much of the viewers voting and maybe, subjectively, the judges too.
I think the change to the voting system to allow voters around the world to vote 24 hours in advance can only but hurt them too; it's not big in the US but the Middle East will hugely downvote them.
Laura Kuenssberg
@bbclaurak
What could go wrong for Keir Starmer? A lot! Last week’s success in the local elections doesn’t mean it’s a done deal 👇🏼
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XT6yOIC6ihI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Lp3QFFvJE
LOL
https://youtu.be/hRDQmsfHpEI?si=eWWqgjbkYPVhEEOE&t=24
DYOR.
10 more mistakes like that, a bit of bad luck, stick Burgon on the front bench, SNP recover a bit, Tories release a few choice stories and some media rally round Sunak. It could all change to the point where Labour only win an extra 100 seats.
Love Shine a Light was the greatest winning song since Waterloo! Kimberley Rew is a vastly underrated songwriter.
I guess it all sounded fantastic in a sweaty room with shit coffee late in the evening talking it all through.
But it is a crap decision.
There is no gain imho whatsoever.
I think it's his best yet. He's entirely disingenuous of course but also ruthless.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has rewritten advice suggesting misgendering your partner or refusing them money for gender surgery constitutes domestic abuse.
The CPS has ditched and redrafted the advice for prosecutors after criticism from women’s campaigners who claimed it was “detrimental to women’s trust and confidence” in the service.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/10/misgendering-your-partner-is-not-domestic-abuse-says-cps/
Then their fans would be 'lover of Russian Queen.'
On the other, the Elphicke farago shows the limits of the Whips' Black Book. If her behaviour was really that awful, why did the Conservative party do nothing about it before Wednesday lunchtime?
And whilst it's unlikely that NE has brought many voters across from Conservative to Labour with her, depressing the Conservative vote (to either Reform or seeing what's on telly) is the next best thing for Team Keir.
I wonder where on the island of Cyprus the detention camp will be located.
Lithuania I think are above par.
😀😀😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maFlRR-zt4g
"Dschinghis Khan - Dschinghis Khan (Disco 26.03.1979)"
Think "Ra! Ra! Rasputin!", but much worse.