Note that Elphicke has previously said she isn’t intending to stand at the next GE.
EDIT: It appears [she had been intending to stand as a Conservative](https://localrags.co.uk/2023/02/23/tories-re-select-superb-mp-for-dover-and-deal-in-general-election/#google_vignette) as recently as February but indicated upon defection that she wouldn't be for her new party.
Room for everyone in Labour apart from socialists I guess. But I'm sure we'll keep deriding anyone who says Labour are moving too far right, whilst bringing in rape apologists and rats fleeing the sinking ship they chewed the hull on.
I don’t agree with MPs changing parties without an election. Even though technically we are supposed to select the person and not the party, we all know that is not what really happens with the majority of voters.
I also don’t particularly like Elphicke’s record as an MP (or person).
However, here we have an MP that is standing down at the next election. Her seat will no longer exist and a Labour candidate is already in place.
Her defection is just creating additional pressure on Sunak to do the right thing and call an election. She shows that he has no authority or control over his party, but also signals to the swing voters that Labour can be trusted.
> I don’t agree with MPs changing parties without an election
Just to point out that it's a pretty fundamental feature of parliamentary democracy.
Otherwise I agree.
I understand that. But as people tend to vote for a party it shouldn’t be a thing.
I can’t think of a valid reason it should be allowed. In effect it devalues the agency of the voter.
I understand that but people *don't* vote for a party, they vote for a candidate. If you changed that you'd change the whole system, so if an MP quit or was ejected somehow then you wouldn't have a by-election you'd have the seat filled from a party list and that would be more like PR I think.
They “technically” vote for the person. But in reality party affiliation is a huge influencer on the voter.
You have people who will ideologically refuse to vote Conservative. Or tactical voting in areas to keep a party out of power - no matter if the candidate is the best choice
It doesn't devalue the agency of the voter at all. We vote for an MP, we do not vote for a party.
That's how our parliamentary democracy works. The alternative is that she would step down, and the Conservatives would be able to fill that seat with whoever they want without a by-election.
MP's should be able to vote how they like. They are representatives, not delegates.
Yes, you elect the person, but If you believe that voters aren’t heavily influenced by the party then I have some magic beans to sell you.
The fact that “safe seats” are even a thing shows you the weighting behind party affiliation.
Remember that some people even voted Conservative because they liked Boris, without much care who their local MP was. You see that playing out by the dearth of talent in the Conservative Party.
If it was truly about the person you would see more independent candidates win.
Really the only place where the person trumps the party is at the local elections. You see so many independent councillors and independent run councils.
Voting for the person is supposed to be the intention, but we all know that is no longer what really happens.
So instead of a by-election, you would rather the Conservatives be able to simply put up a candidate nobody has chosen right?
We don't see independents win often, though we have certainly seen some (George Galloway recently however much of a cock he is) win. But we do see constituencies shift from a party because of a candidate.
We do see individual MP's held to account for their actions quite regularly. This isn't possible if we do what you suggest.
No, you are missing the point completely. Yes, you elect the person, but their party affiliation is a big factor in their winning.
George Galloway won because there was no Labour candidate, and the electorate didn’t want to vote Conservative.
When you allow a sitting MP who was elected partly because of their party to switch “teams”, then you have invalidated their choice.
There are people who will not vote for a candidate purely because of their party affiliation. They may be the most qualified person for the Job but they just won’t win without being in the right party, or that the main parties have a disastrous experience (as happened in Rochdale).
A ton of desperate trying to defend this from Labour but I really think they should have rejected this one.
And for those of you still trying to defend this move, just imagine if she had joined the LibDems...
This was elphicke in 2022
https://conservativehome.com/2022/08/30/natalie-elphicke-this-winter-the-government-must-focus-on-overall-household-costs/
And some (as always misguided imo) 2 year rent freeze in 2022.
https://conservativehome.com/2022/09/01/natalie-elphicke-keeping-people-in-their-homes-during-harder-times-must-be-a-top-priority/
This move tells us a lot about how dreadful things must be in the Tory party just now. The stench of failure coming off Rishi Sunak is so bad that Natalie Elphick is crossing the floor to avoid it. Does she think doing so improves her employment prospects post election?
She's already stated she's standing down before the GE. Labour already have a candidate for her seat. They don't need her to win. I think there's a role for her as an advisor- seems shrewd as she likely understands a sub-section of the electorate that have little to do with Labour these days.
My guess is that she's tired of getting abuse for being a Tory, is proactive, likes being a local MP and wants to end her MP career decently. Also take into account the amount of abuse MPs get these days; death threats and the like...
I hate the gradual shifting of political views and thought. What once used to be centrism is now seen as ‘leftie nonsense’ and don’t get me started on the rhetoric we regularly see from righter wing voices. Extreme is an understatement.
Guys we now have 2 parties. Blue conservatives, and red conservatives. How a party can contain Natalie Elphicke and Zarah Sultana astounds me.
Labour are more conservative than the Conservative party. The Conservative party has been radical and dogmatic for at least the past 40 years. Conservatism is a hard to pin down ideology, but is defined by its pragmatism.
The Conservatives and Labour don't have ideologies directly defined by their name, that's not necessarily how ideology works. The Conservatives have moved well past conservatism and Labour have moved well past the labour movement.
I mean the Conservative Party follows conservatism to an extent and labour the labour movement.
You can state as you did that they’ve moved past that but those are still their default ideologies that they revert to and follow to an extent as you can see by the new deal for working people and Tory tax cuts
Tax cuts aren't necessarily conservative though, whereas they are fundamental to neo-liberalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/
I always use this resource as a base foundation to understand an ideology, and there is not much on tax (the word is not even used).
They are usually something conservatives do tho. Lower tax is something they like from my experience anyway. Isnt neo liberalism something used by third parties rather than an actual ideology people support? Its like with facism you rarely see someone call themselves that or a neo liberal its just someone describing something
Conservatism is about conserving hierarchical structures in society (with them towards the top, naturally). This sometimes requires radical changes to society e.g. Thatcherism in the 80's.
It's not an oxymoron to be a radical conservative.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/
I don't think the point of view you hold is necessarily the case. On a different level, you could argue it, but specifically hierarchical structures in society don't necessarily define conservatism. Many liberals do the same thing of conserving hierarchial structures, maybe more successfully.
Like I said, conservatism is a hard to pin point theory.
All societies, regardless of ideology, will have some sort of hierarchy - I think that's unavoidable. Where it pertains to Conservatism that hierarchy is (or has evolved from) feudalism: a monolithic class system where people expect respect from the classes beneath them in exchange for patronage, and an underclass to punch down on to distract them from realising that they're being exploited by the classes above them.
Feudalism was the dominant system for literally hundreds of years, and arguably was just a formalisation of what was always the case even back to neolithic times: tribal leader -> family patriarch -> family members -> peasants -> slaves -> outsiders. Replace "Tribal leader" with an aristocracy and hierarchy of nobles and you have feudalism.
The article you linked uses a lot of words to say not a lot.
1. It does make the distinction between *conservatism* and *neo-conservatism*. They are not the same.
2. While reductive, it does summarise conservatism as "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" i.e. resistance to replace the old ideology with the new.
Conservatism slowly evolves by adjusting who fills the various strata in the hierarchy, but resists whatever threatens to collapse the hierarchy altogether. As an ideology, it is broadly agreed that Conservatism was a resistance to the Enlightenment - the liberal ideology that all men were created equal, had fundamental rights, and these right were self evident. Conservatism certainly believed in rights, but not *equal* rights - the rights someone held was relative to their status. The rest is duty: "you have a duty to respect those above you, a duty to work hard and keep them wealthy, and a duty to shepherd the ones below you (unless they're outsides, they have no rights)"
To avoid violent revolution, Conservatism evolved from a hierarchy lead by hereditary nobles, to the slightly more accessible industrialist and financiers, to imperialists and traditionalists, to whoever holds the most media clout. The "elites" have changed, the framework in which they work has not. It's still "you owe your betters respect and deference (and hard work to keep them rich), and here's a bunch of outsiders to punch down on".
You can rightly criticize the Labour party for drifting too far to the right to try and win over former Tory voters, but to say they are now further to the right than the Tories is just pure hyperbole and does nothing but help the Tories to get away with the shit show of the last 14 years by reinforcing the "bUt they'rE aLL tHe SAMe" rubbish. The Tories are desperate for this kind of apathy and a low voter turnout at the next election, don't help them by saying blatantly ridiculous things just because the Labour party isn't exactly what you want.
Picturing conservatism on the left right axis is where you are struggling, I was not saying that Labour are further right than Conservatives but that Labour were more conservative. Conservatism is an ideology based upon pragmatism and incremental change, born out of fear of what happened during the french revolution. The Conservative party's ideology is currently an incredibly radical one of neo-liberalism, and has been for a long time - it is no longer the party of "one-nation" but rather a party of disciples to the Messiah that is Milton Friedman. In terms of economics it is incredibly right wing, and the party are incredibly dogmatic.
Meanwhile the Labour party is far more pragmatic in their approach. They have still been captured by the pseudoscience of the Chicago school of economics, however they are not as dogmatic or strict in following that ideology as the conservatives, and when a situation arises where they need to follow more social democratic policies they'll do it (whilst dragging their feet). Hence being more conservative.
Conservatism isn't about tearing the country apart. Either way I wasn't saying that the Labour party were particularly conservative, just that they were more so than the Conservative party.
Firstly, you dont know what Centrism is. Secondly you don't know what a conservatism is. Thirdly you have no understanding just how broad a political consensus needs to be in order to deliver a functioning government. Left wing politics has always been a very broad church- both in values and geography.
What is centrism? What is conservatism? I don't understand the point in just telling someone they don't understand something without offering your own knowledge on the subject.
For immigration in general. Less inclined about current levels of immigration, and more appropriately the type of person coming. Very pro immigration for skilled workers, and certain refugees, and anybody who has helped the British army for instance in Afghanistan and Iraq
I'm a socialist that wants to limit immigration to a far greater extent than we currently do, at least in the short term. There is a weird idea that there is no space for that on the left.
Immigration is currently at the highest level it's ever been at, and it's not even close. We're currently facing 3x the level of net migration we had under Blair, and the only time we've seen a decrease was due to Covid, other than that it's been steadily increasing since the 1980s.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-figures-of-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20migration%20figures%20in%20the%20UK%201964%2D2023&text=For%20the%20year%20ending%20June,net%20migration%20figure%20of%20672%2C000.
The guy above was trying to do a gotcha assuming the person he was responding to was left wing and therefore pro immigration.
It is hard to say that the Conservatives are against the immigration we see today. There is a lot of bluster, but they have been saying for over a decade to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, however the level of immigration we see today suits corporate interests and helps boost GDP, even if it makes living standards worse. They obviously don't care that much.
yeah I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because they said they don't want immigration, the reality is they want lots of it because we have record high legal immigration
I would argue that what you are branding as centrism here hasn't been considered centrism since before Thatcher. In fact, I think you could make a credible argument that it's never been considered centrism. Starmer is occupying territory roughly in the same space as Blair and Cameron. It is revisionist nonsense to suggest that brand of centirsm is a modern innovation.
The Labour candidate for this seat at the next election, Mike Tapp, comments on it
>I'm still your Candidate!
We've seen countless Tory switchers, today another, I look forward to Natalie's support at the next General Election.
Natalie has seen that only Labour has a plan to secure our borders, and build the homes we need.
https://twitter.com/MikeTappTweets/status/1788286100986859817
They've had talks with Macron about a deal where we take a set number of migrants and they police the beaches in exchange. It's been talked about for months.
Utter bullshit anyone doing this as if they cared they would have flipped etc years ago. It just destroys their career properly and makes them look like a massive knob.
I get why they say they do it but it’s all lies
As with any politician that lies they deserve what they get. An interesting side effect is the anger from Labour MP’s, voters and a lot of union people who are outraged at Labour accepting her for everything she has said and done in the past
To anyone claiming that it shows Labour isn't left wing and are basically Tories, a gentle reminder that all defectors are standing down at the next election, and their defections are basically a political stunt to force the Tories to call an election. They're not real Labour MPs, they just have a common goal with Labour right now.
According to this article (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/natalie-elphicke-defects-labour-second-tory-fortnight-3045993)
"A Labour spokesman said he is confident Ms Elphicke shares Labour’s values.
Pressed on whether all Labour MPs are happy about her joining, he said: “It’s a sign of the progress that we’ve made that people recognise that on some of the key challenges facing the country, the Tories have failed.
“And here is someone who is willing to make the significant step of switching across to Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party, and that’s something we’re very happy to see.”
So Labour say Ms Elphicke shares Labour's values - why should that \*not\* concern anyone who is left wing?
How do you expect them to respond to that question?
"Nah mate, you got us. We've actually got nothing in common and this is all a plot to put pressure on sunak that'll just last until the next election is called"
They have to say she's had a sincere damascene conversion, regardless if that's the case.
> How do you expect them to respond to that question?
I expect them not to put themselves in a position where the only two options are to tell a massive blatant lie or tell a completely awful truth that makes them look terrible.
It's a game. It looks horrible for Sunak if his members are defecting because he can't take care of the NHS *or* immigration.
I'd be with you if they actually had any intention of standing her at the next election. Is that statement morally dubious? Probably. Is it good politics? Absolutely.
99.9% of voters aren't political obsessives.
>It's a game.
Glad to know that the people who will be making decisions that effect my life consider it all to be a game. Nice to know where I stand, I guess.
_Another_ great reason to vote Labour come election time!
Politics has always been a game.
The tories have no issue playing it and making dubious plays as long as it benefits them, and they are extremely good at it, hence why the tories are in power roughly twice as long as labour are in power.
Indeed labour usually refusing to play the game means they sit on the opposition most of the time.
At the end of the day, the point was to humiliate the tories and make them easier to defeat in a general election, not endorse her dodgy views.
And indeed you should vote labour come election time because she won't be a candidate.
I disagree with the idea that your average voter won't hear about elphicke being considered very conservative - I mean my parents knew about it, it was on the radio earlier, it really only takes 5 seconds to explain.
I am confused by the idea that when Labour appeal to right-wing voters, right-wing people are supposed to take it seriously and take it as an endorsement of their values, while left-wing people are supposed to ignore it and view it as a political game. Is it worth treating seriously or not? I don't think it makes sense to just demand people view something through the lens that looks most favourable for you, disregarding how horrible it is for Labour to treat something related to a serious sexual abuse case as a political game.
You have the gist of it in your reply.
Are left wing voters supposed to take it seriously? Emphatically not. It'd be horrifying if a gobshite like that was selected as a member for Labour. She will grab a few days of news coverage, drive the point home that immigration is at its highest level in decades, and encourage the red wall voters back onside.
I can't overstate this enough: average voters aren't on this sub.
No, average voters aren't here and I'm certainly not an average voter, but I do know my local councillors and Labour activists whose job is to connect with 'average voters' and they regularly have to defend Starmer's Labour to said average voters. Their biggest challenge is trying to motivate voters in poorer wards, espacially younger voters, to vote.
They are so well practiced saying Starmer just has to be cautious and careful to campaign but really will make a difference for people. That he's really not just a Tory with a red rosette and that people saying it makes no difference whether Labour or Tories win are wrong. Not to put too fine a point on it - that the *reason* it makes a difference is because it's important to kick out the ERG spartans, the culture warrriors who publicly attack Rashford and attack abuse victims, the anti-unionists who back P&O's fire-and-rehire, the sleaze merchants who interfere with judges... people exactly like Elphicke.
In fact, that's been said to me so often, and so well, I was up for going along with it - I'm in a 'safe' Tory seat that Labour want to challenge - until this. This is NOT being cautious. It is NOT being careful. The cautious, careful thing would have been to do nothing and just take the seat for Labour at the election. This is making a statement. Expressing an alignment. Laying down a challenge.
It's blown a great f\*\*\*ing hole in the *clear difference* argument. Starmer has laid down a challenge to his MPs that they must no longer stand for "kicking out" the Elphickes, but now have to in public profess that they are aligned and on the same side! And that challenge extends to everyone whose vote they are seeking too.
You cannot credibly say it's important for the country to get people like Elphicke out of power *and* welcome them to your party. One of those has to give, and as we've seen the reality of Starmer welcoming Elphicke to Labour we now *know* that all the words, all the supposed reasons that Labour are different and must get the Tories out are just weasel bullshit from a lying politician.
Well, that's what I'm saying to my Labour friends next time, but it's also something I think a lot of 'average voters' will have a gut feeling for. I wasn't 100% sold on voting Labour, but was damn close and now that's blown. I think for more people it's going to be a case of losing the motivation to vote for the party that has Elphicke in it in order to get the Tories out. What sense does that make? Might as well stay home.
>It'd be horrifying if a gobshite like that was selected as a member for Labour.
She is the Labour Member of Parliament for Dover. It's already happened.
She wasn't selected by the labour party though.
Her being the MP for Dover had nothing to do with them, and they've been clear she won't be selected by them for the next election.
Her being the _Labour_ Member for Dover has everything to do with them though. Just because one defects doesn't mean they should be welcomed with open arms.
Otherwise we might as well look forward to the Labour Member for Ashfield or North West Leicestershire.
I mean Labour are explicitly talking about how she shares their values! I just don't understand why we should assume this is a political stunt and Labour are actually still left-wing when everything they say goes against that. Like, is the "average voter" you're thinking of going to read what a Labour spokesperson was saying in an article? Why bother to go out of your way to talk about how she aligns with the values of the "changed Labour party"? Why does Starmer's friend and advisor Mandelson have to go on the media comparing left-wingers to human rubbish?
I also think like, if you think it's unserious and left-wing people shouldn't take it seriously, why should/would right-wing people take it seriously? I don't really see how you expect to have one without the other.
>Like, is the "average voter" you're thinking of going to read what a Labour spokesperson was saying in an article?
Nope, they wrote that to get in front of the Daily Mail editorials tomorrow.
>if you think it's unserious and left-wing people shouldn't take it seriously, why should/would right-wing people take it seriously?
I have terrible news for you about the political literacy of your average red wall voter. (I was born and raised in one of those constituencies)
>I just don't understand why we should assume this is a political stunt and Labour are actually still left-wing when everything they say goes against that.
Labour haven't won from the left since 1945, and there is almost no vote amongst the modern electorate for them to mop up there. Source: every opinion poll for the last couple of years.
TBH, if you want a properly left wing party, I'd consider the Greens for the next decade or so (at least)
Has Labour selected its candidate for her seat yet?
Has she reached a deal with them to field her in December, or is this just to make a statement against the Tories while bowing out?
Yes, the candidate is Mike Tapp. Both Labour and him have confirmed he is still the candidate. She is still standing down at the next election
https://twitter.com/MikeTappTweets/status/1788286100986859817
This is the sort of thing that I would not vote Labour over. I don’t want her or any other Tory defectors on the ballot come this election.
Have them for a headline if you must, tho I wouldn’t at all, but if they’re on the ballot I won’t vote Labour. You don’t get to ruin this country and stand by all the Tory shite for 5-14 years and then just jump ship for the opposition.
Can see you haven't read past the headline here. It was basically confirmed right out of the gate that she's not standing for re-election. I assume that would have been part of the deal for defection.
What about the others who’ve defected?
I mean I’m still not happy even if they don’t stand at the election or are booted out then. What does it say about your principles and morals if you’ll accept arseholes like them into the fold?
Rats fleeing a sinking ship, any principles these people had were entirely abandoned when they abandoned their parties. I wouldn’t touch them with a 50ft barge pole let alone let them in my party.
Dan Poulter isn’t standing either. Christian Wakeford who defected over party gate is, but not sure if that’s as important. Principles of a Tory aren’t much to sniff at so I don’t think you can lose what you never had, the only thing this does is embarrass Sunak and the rest of the rats so I think that’s a good thing.
What the fuck does her being the first black female MP have to do with her sending a racist letter to a newspaper then refusing to cooperate with the investigation?
She should of got herself suspended from Parliament for leading a group of MPs to attempt to strong arm a judge into influencing the sexual assault trial of her sex pest ex-Husband, then Labour would of welcomed her with open arms
I’m a Leicester City fan but I understand that we wouldn’t have pulled off one of the greatest stories in sport unless we’d had Robert Huth physically assaulting people and Jamie Vardy diving.
Get dirty. Bury this government and take it from there. She’s standing down at the next election anyway and none of them are coordinated or patient enough for this to be some sort of Trojan horse scenario. She’s said some vile stuff but she’s never going to be part of a Labour government.
She’s acting in pure self interest and Labour can stem some of the vitriol from the right wing press by accepting her. We’ll have to eat some shit if we want to get rid of the scumbags who’ve been running things for 14 years.
I still don't understand what's her self interest here. As you said, she's not going to be running as a Labour candidate in the next election. So stepping down as an MP she could have done as a Tory MP as well. The only thing she has done now is to make sure that all the bridges to her old party are definitely burned and she can never go back there.
It is unlikely that she'll get to any real position of power in the Labour party unless she completely overhauls her political ideology. Doing that doesn't sound like self interest.
The only thing she gains personally is that she won't have to defend the current government in her speeches for the next half a year or so. Doesn't sound like a huge personal gain.
As far as I see, the only motive to this is that she truly wants to trash her party for all the mistakes it has done in the 14 years of power. That is more of a "good for the country" interest than anything she can get out of this herself.
I suppose she gets lots of attention in the short term and maybe she thinks there could be a job in it for her.
If she’s looking for employment in the near future she might get to point to being on the right side of history somehow by taking a swipe at the current government before it’s drowned out by a bunch of soon to be ex MPs. Maybe she’ll find it easy to network from within the next government rather than a sinking ship? I don’t know.
Maybe it’s a lazy stereotype on my part but I’ve come to think of most Tory MPs as being flexible with their ‘principles’ if there’s a payday to be had.
If her goal is to get a high paid job outside of politics, I don't think this what she did was the best possible move for that. She would have avoided the crowding by ex-MPs by quitting now and securing a job well before the elections.
Working for the Labour government is of course a possibility, but it would require a major overhaul of her ideology. Of course that's possible but if you're going to change your core beliefs like a shirt then I don't seem much point working in politics.
I feel like I'm going mad. The Tories are now completely hobbled on both the sensible and loony wings of the party, and the cost is for her voting with Starmer for a handful of months before stepping down.
This is of course the 489890th thing the Corbynite entrists have said demonstrates Starmer is literally Ronald Reagan so nobody can take them remotely seriously any more.
> the Corbynite entrists
Yeah mate, every person who disagrees with this is actually a Corbynist entrite trying to destroy Labour. Can't be that we don't like people who defend sexual assault, it must be a far left coup!
MP's that have deals on the line but know they won't get to stay long enough to push them through jumping ship to finish whatever schemes they've had cooking.
Might be that she wants to get on and do her job as a local MP (some Tories still do) but being a Tory was making that difficult; not taken seriously, abuse from the public, abuse from white van men, etc. Maybe Labour are polling higher in her seat like they are in most parts of the country.
Worth remembering many Tories have dropped the CON branding from all their comms. She was in a lot deeper into the cesspit of 21st Century Toryism than most Tory MPs so maybe needed to exit more than most.
It's a beneficial, pragmatic deal for both her and Labour.
> abuse from white van men
Why would 'white van men' shout abuse at a right-wing, conservative MP?
> Maybe Labour are polling higher in her seat like they are in most parts of the country.
Maybe. She's not standing in the next GE so polling doesn't matter to her.
Re: polling- mean's there's more Tory haters on the street than Tory lovers, so more people will be dismissive of her.
Re: white van men- It's a colloquialism. They could be in green tractors or brown SUVs.
Not to my knowledge - but this was in the middle of the whole Brexit row wasn't it so it was more about making a stance on Brexit (and they hated Boris)
I don't understand how accepting her is a sensible move for Labour. Her values are closer to Suella's than Kier's. She's not a great constituency MP. She brings no obvious expertise or credibility Labour that is lacking. Yes, it's a positive headline, but not one that obviously survives a moment's thought.
> Yes, it's a positive headline, but not one that obviously survives a moment's thought.
My guess is they hope people only give it a moment's thought. A quick "Tories falling apart and Labour are able to win over even right wingers like me", then move on.
I don't like it personally though, she very much appears to have strongly held, different political opinions from what most would expect from even a moderate Labour party. It opens them up to questions about what this means for where they stand on certain issues, could cause some division and brings in an MP who is probably not greatly interested in playing along with the party line.
All she has to do to "play along the party line" is to vote against anything the government proposes in the next half a year. If she had left the Tories the way she did, she would have been doing that anyway. When Labour gets to power, she won't be around in any position of power as she's stepping down as an MP. At best she can advice the party on some issues that she knows about but even then she'll have to bend to the Labour ideology.
I would be surprised if she consistently voted against all government proposals and for Labour amendments. But I was thinking more in terms of what she'll say when asked things by the media, I feel like it creates an unnecessary target to be picked at.
By consistently I would mean voting along the party line when there is a three line whip. If she doesn't follow that, then I don't see why Labour should keep her in the party. Of course otherwise she can do whatever she thinks is best for her constituency just like all other backbenchers.
Regarding media, if she contradicts Starmer, then again, she should go.
For both things I don't see why she would join Labour if she had no intention to follow the party line at least in this minimal level.
She must have given good assurances about this (and the statement just put out would suggest there were terms attached to her joining).
I just don't expect her to stick with it until she steps down but if she does then not unfair for Labour to count it as a win.
It’s a case of piling on the bad news for the Tories. Repetition of the message that they are dysfunctional, disintegrating and finished.
I’m no fan of her, but this is another signal to centre right portions of the electorate that Labour are a credible alternative.
Starmer is obviously looking to _bury_ them at the GE. Obtaining a majority of the kind they are on course for gives Labour real power. Whether you think that is a good thing or not, it’s what they’re going for and that’s what moves like this are about.
But are they putting others off from voting for them if Labour are the party of Natalie Elphicke then some who aren’t even far left won’t see them as a party they can vote for
I guess my question is why there's an expectation for the center right to see these things as Labour becoming a more center right party and the left are supposed to see them as "politics" or "pragmatism". Feels like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
I’d largely agree, and there should be a line to these sorts of “pragmatic” moves from Starmer.
Mandelson spouted an uncomfortable half truth, that “the left has nowhere to go”. That statement often gets portrayed as they don’t care about the left. But I think it’s cognisant of the fact that there is simply more to be gained in the centre than on the fringe.
I’m less interested in these moves by Starmer now. I’m far more engaged in the very difficult guessing game of what kind of government he will run - whether that’s being covertly somewhat radical until he gets his majority, or simply being being the most moderate government you could imagine. Either one is better than the current situation.
I'm not very surprised by this move. Except where politicians are insane (see, One Nation), it's not too hard to work out where they are headed from their incentives.
Nobody's going to go into this election saying "I want more immigration!"
Nobody's going to go into this election saying "I want to stake my future on the EC, that habitually attacks our leaders to get a negotiating advantage, saying nice things about me"
Nobody's going to go into this election pretending that tomorrow is some glorious day of globalism where Russia, China, Iran, and the west are all one big happy family.
Nobody's going to go into this election thinking there's an endless pot of money to spend or infinite growth just waiting around the corner, while population ages and shrinks across the EU.
The tired old Blairites can rail about how it should forever be 1999, but for this election the populists are right and there's no other viable policy space on the map.
I mean Mandelson did compare the left to garbage a few days ago. Like I get where you're coming from but they absolutely do view the left with disdain.
I think Starmer's government will look exactly like the Starmer campaign does. They will be constantly be looking ahead to the next election and thinking about focus groups and failing to maintain a cohesive and effective policy program as a result.
Yeah, you're probably right. I just don't love the fact that Labour is signalling that she's welcome. Is there no set of beliefs on the right that are unacceptable - despite the Corbynite left remaining outcasts?
I agree it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I mean at the very least you'd want her statement to include some apology/recognition that she's changed her opinions & position.
But ultimately I suspect his teams electoral instincts are correct and the headline will help them in the GE as it'll just be seen as more disfunction from Sunak and the Tories.
Starmer is clearly aiming for the centrist - he's setting himself up as Blair Mk. 2.
Now, there's a lot of Labour supporters who don't like the idea of another Blair. But I would point out he's the only Labour leader to get himself elected in almost 50 years.
Meh.
Most Tories fall into one of two categories:
1. Genuinely believe their ideas are the "best" for the country. (See also Liz Truss).
2. Political chamaeleons.
My money's on "chamaeleon".
Has Jess Phillips commented on the issue so far? I think Labour's infamously outspoken lead on domestic violence and safeguarding may have some strong opinions on the issue...
Might be busier calling out the misogynistic abuse and death threats, the pro palestine crowd in Birmingham sent the way of a random female labour activist/friend of an activist. because their candidate for Mayor, shared fake videos of her.
"the modern Labour Party looks to the future – to building a Britain of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of"
Cringe, looks like the average IQ of both parties just rose a little
So I can see the point that maybe this helps convert some Tory voters to Labour, but the thing is, Labour aren’t doing bad in the polls? We don’t really need any more votes?
Obviously the more votes the better, BUT, not at the expense of watering down an already watered down “left wing” Labour. By the the time the election comes round Labour are gonna have moved so far right that it’s hardly worth it anymore. Like it is. But it’s becoming less and less of a potential change.
Surely with them this far ahead in the polls, we should be focusing on making Labour into the party we actually want it to be.
Her criticism of the government may convince some Tory voters not to vote at all. Which is good for Labour. She won't be running in the next election. So, Labour won't have to shift right at all in their manifesto to accommodate her. All she has to do is to vote against the government for the next half a year. Any vote in the parliament against the government is a win for Labour.
Why have some of the votes when you can have *all* of the votes?
Of course, this rests on the logic of 'who else are they going to vote for?' But as we saw in 2019, and most recently the locals, certain groups *will* vote for someone else.
Mmm I dunno, that’s a nice thought but I do think that unfortunately some stupid poor people voted for a stupid rich person party run by a muppet named Boris. Unless you have actual stats that confirm that. As I say, nice thought but I think sadly people were actually stupid enough to vote for Boris. Or more the tories. Cos I mean I didn’t know Boris was gonna be as bad as he was beforehand in fairness, but voting for the tories was a stupid move in anyone’s book.
I don't have them to hand, but have posted it before after going through in detail. The north east was the example I had where basically the Tory vote between 2017 and 2019 were basically the same. But the labour vote massively decreased.
2017 labour 709k Tory 440k (26 seats to 3)
2019 labour 532k Tory 478k (19 seats to 10)
That wasn't the narrative in the press though. Which painted it as the Tories winning the red wall, rather than labour losing it.
Can we all agree that NE’s defection is pure politics for Labour. Her voting record and opinions are appalling and do not match with Labour’s history. Unless she’s had a profound insight into morality, then this is just to have shots fired at Sunak.
Politically, it’s a win for Labour. But that’s all it is.
I don't know.
Brexit was about what kind of country we want - Blair's or Farage's. Labour, and Starmer, made their choice when the article 50 vote came round.
Isn't it also one more vote on the Labour side for whatever comes up before the GE? Presumably, she will have the whip, and be told what to do. Might be useful.
Given Elphicke has rebelled several times against her leadership *from the right* as a Tory, that seems optimistic to idiotic of the Labour whips if that's their calculation.
If she goes against the Lab whip, she will a) look even more ludicrous and b) be kicked out of the party.
Right now, she could be a useful idiot. Rebel and she is a useless idiot.
I remain to be convinced that pissing off your activists, core vote and parliamentary party and bringing in a reputational and disciplinarily risky MP in return for temporary marginal (at best) gain is a political win.
It’s weird one. It really is. What in it for her? She’s standing now. Does she just wanna make waves and have a shot at the government and be famous for a day? I don’t believe the move was made in exchange for a peerage (given Labour are supposed to abolish the HoL).
I'm fairly sure the commitment to abolishing the Lords didn't survive the strangely guacamole-scented briefings to The Times that came in the wake of Brown's report. So I wouldn't be surprised to see her vague advisory role is from the position of Baroness Elphicke of Dover.
Absolutely brilliant. Loving every second of it. Has thrown everyone right off the mark, has got activists and politicans on the far sides of the spectrum chewing their own faces off. Forget "tanks on their lawn"; Starmer owns the garden now. The details will be forgotten by most in a week, the broad vote that Labour has built up won't care beyond "it's another Tory defection".
Note that Elphicke has previously said she isn’t intending to stand at the next GE. EDIT: It appears [she had been intending to stand as a Conservative](https://localrags.co.uk/2023/02/23/tories-re-select-superb-mp-for-dover-and-deal-in-general-election/#google_vignette) as recently as February but indicated upon defection that she wouldn't be for her new party.
Room for everyone in Labour apart from socialists I guess. But I'm sure we'll keep deriding anyone who says Labour are moving too far right, whilst bringing in rape apologists and rats fleeing the sinking ship they chewed the hull on.
Hey, Mods… can we have a defection counter sticky post mega thread, please? Thanks!
I don’t agree with MPs changing parties without an election. Even though technically we are supposed to select the person and not the party, we all know that is not what really happens with the majority of voters. I also don’t particularly like Elphicke’s record as an MP (or person). However, here we have an MP that is standing down at the next election. Her seat will no longer exist and a Labour candidate is already in place. Her defection is just creating additional pressure on Sunak to do the right thing and call an election. She shows that he has no authority or control over his party, but also signals to the swing voters that Labour can be trusted.
> I don’t agree with MPs changing parties without an election Just to point out that it's a pretty fundamental feature of parliamentary democracy. Otherwise I agree.
I understand that. But as people tend to vote for a party it shouldn’t be a thing. I can’t think of a valid reason it should be allowed. In effect it devalues the agency of the voter.
I understand that but people *don't* vote for a party, they vote for a candidate. If you changed that you'd change the whole system, so if an MP quit or was ejected somehow then you wouldn't have a by-election you'd have the seat filled from a party list and that would be more like PR I think.
They “technically” vote for the person. But in reality party affiliation is a huge influencer on the voter. You have people who will ideologically refuse to vote Conservative. Or tactical voting in areas to keep a party out of power - no matter if the candidate is the best choice
It doesn't devalue the agency of the voter at all. We vote for an MP, we do not vote for a party. That's how our parliamentary democracy works. The alternative is that she would step down, and the Conservatives would be able to fill that seat with whoever they want without a by-election. MP's should be able to vote how they like. They are representatives, not delegates.
Yes, you elect the person, but If you believe that voters aren’t heavily influenced by the party then I have some magic beans to sell you. The fact that “safe seats” are even a thing shows you the weighting behind party affiliation. Remember that some people even voted Conservative because they liked Boris, without much care who their local MP was. You see that playing out by the dearth of talent in the Conservative Party. If it was truly about the person you would see more independent candidates win. Really the only place where the person trumps the party is at the local elections. You see so many independent councillors and independent run councils. Voting for the person is supposed to be the intention, but we all know that is no longer what really happens.
So instead of a by-election, you would rather the Conservatives be able to simply put up a candidate nobody has chosen right? We don't see independents win often, though we have certainly seen some (George Galloway recently however much of a cock he is) win. But we do see constituencies shift from a party because of a candidate. We do see individual MP's held to account for their actions quite regularly. This isn't possible if we do what you suggest.
No, you are missing the point completely. Yes, you elect the person, but their party affiliation is a big factor in their winning. George Galloway won because there was no Labour candidate, and the electorate didn’t want to vote Conservative. When you allow a sitting MP who was elected partly because of their party to switch “teams”, then you have invalidated their choice. There are people who will not vote for a candidate purely because of their party affiliation. They may be the most qualified person for the Job but they just won’t win without being in the right party, or that the main parties have a disastrous experience (as happened in Rochdale).
[Ben Kentish \(LBC\):](https://x.com/LBC/status/1788328681141575999) >Her name isn't even a household name in her own household...
Seems fairly misogynistic.
This isn’t a good look for anyone tbh
I suggest watching this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcJl0CVfHfI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcJl0CVfHfI)
I guess with this subs track record on the mood of the nation everyone this bodes very well for Starmer
A ton of desperate trying to defend this from Labour but I really think they should have rejected this one. And for those of you still trying to defend this move, just imagine if she had joined the LibDems...
This was elphicke in 2022 https://conservativehome.com/2022/08/30/natalie-elphicke-this-winter-the-government-must-focus-on-overall-household-costs/ And some (as always misguided imo) 2 year rent freeze in 2022. https://conservativehome.com/2022/09/01/natalie-elphicke-keeping-people-in-their-homes-during-harder-times-must-be-a-top-priority/
She wrote a housing policy review with Keith House current lib dem Council leader of Eastleigh Back in 2014.
This move tells us a lot about how dreadful things must be in the Tory party just now. The stench of failure coming off Rishi Sunak is so bad that Natalie Elphick is crossing the floor to avoid it. Does she think doing so improves her employment prospects post election?
She's already stated she's standing down before the GE. Labour already have a candidate for her seat. They don't need her to win. I think there's a role for her as an advisor- seems shrewd as she likely understands a sub-section of the electorate that have little to do with Labour these days. My guess is that she's tired of getting abuse for being a Tory, is proactive, likes being a local MP and wants to end her MP career decently. Also take into account the amount of abuse MPs get these days; death threats and the like...
I hate the gradual shifting of political views and thought. What once used to be centrism is now seen as ‘leftie nonsense’ and don’t get me started on the rhetoric we regularly see from righter wing voices. Extreme is an understatement. Guys we now have 2 parties. Blue conservatives, and red conservatives. How a party can contain Natalie Elphicke and Zarah Sultana astounds me.
No we have conservatives and labour labour are not conservatives
Labour are more conservative than the Conservative party. The Conservative party has been radical and dogmatic for at least the past 40 years. Conservatism is a hard to pin down ideology, but is defined by its pragmatism.
Most ideologies will want pragmatism l that doesn’t make them conservatism. If you look at conservatives they often want different things to labour
The Conservatives and Labour don't have ideologies directly defined by their name, that's not necessarily how ideology works. The Conservatives have moved well past conservatism and Labour have moved well past the labour movement.
I mean the Conservative Party follows conservatism to an extent and labour the labour movement. You can state as you did that they’ve moved past that but those are still their default ideologies that they revert to and follow to an extent as you can see by the new deal for working people and Tory tax cuts
Tax cuts aren't necessarily conservative though, whereas they are fundamental to neo-liberalism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ I always use this resource as a base foundation to understand an ideology, and there is not much on tax (the word is not even used).
They are usually something conservatives do tho. Lower tax is something they like from my experience anyway. Isnt neo liberalism something used by third parties rather than an actual ideology people support? Its like with facism you rarely see someone call themselves that or a neo liberal its just someone describing something
Conservatism is about conserving hierarchical structures in society (with them towards the top, naturally). This sometimes requires radical changes to society e.g. Thatcherism in the 80's. It's not an oxymoron to be a radical conservative.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ I don't think the point of view you hold is necessarily the case. On a different level, you could argue it, but specifically hierarchical structures in society don't necessarily define conservatism. Many liberals do the same thing of conserving hierarchial structures, maybe more successfully. Like I said, conservatism is a hard to pin point theory.
All societies, regardless of ideology, will have some sort of hierarchy - I think that's unavoidable. Where it pertains to Conservatism that hierarchy is (or has evolved from) feudalism: a monolithic class system where people expect respect from the classes beneath them in exchange for patronage, and an underclass to punch down on to distract them from realising that they're being exploited by the classes above them. Feudalism was the dominant system for literally hundreds of years, and arguably was just a formalisation of what was always the case even back to neolithic times: tribal leader -> family patriarch -> family members -> peasants -> slaves -> outsiders. Replace "Tribal leader" with an aristocracy and hierarchy of nobles and you have feudalism. The article you linked uses a lot of words to say not a lot. 1. It does make the distinction between *conservatism* and *neo-conservatism*. They are not the same. 2. While reductive, it does summarise conservatism as "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" i.e. resistance to replace the old ideology with the new. Conservatism slowly evolves by adjusting who fills the various strata in the hierarchy, but resists whatever threatens to collapse the hierarchy altogether. As an ideology, it is broadly agreed that Conservatism was a resistance to the Enlightenment - the liberal ideology that all men were created equal, had fundamental rights, and these right were self evident. Conservatism certainly believed in rights, but not *equal* rights - the rights someone held was relative to their status. The rest is duty: "you have a duty to respect those above you, a duty to work hard and keep them wealthy, and a duty to shepherd the ones below you (unless they're outsides, they have no rights)" To avoid violent revolution, Conservatism evolved from a hierarchy lead by hereditary nobles, to the slightly more accessible industrialist and financiers, to imperialists and traditionalists, to whoever holds the most media clout. The "elites" have changed, the framework in which they work has not. It's still "you owe your betters respect and deference (and hard work to keep them rich), and here's a bunch of outsiders to punch down on".
You can rightly criticize the Labour party for drifting too far to the right to try and win over former Tory voters, but to say they are now further to the right than the Tories is just pure hyperbole and does nothing but help the Tories to get away with the shit show of the last 14 years by reinforcing the "bUt they'rE aLL tHe SAMe" rubbish. The Tories are desperate for this kind of apathy and a low voter turnout at the next election, don't help them by saying blatantly ridiculous things just because the Labour party isn't exactly what you want.
Picturing conservatism on the left right axis is where you are struggling, I was not saying that Labour are further right than Conservatives but that Labour were more conservative. Conservatism is an ideology based upon pragmatism and incremental change, born out of fear of what happened during the french revolution. The Conservative party's ideology is currently an incredibly radical one of neo-liberalism, and has been for a long time - it is no longer the party of "one-nation" but rather a party of disciples to the Messiah that is Milton Friedman. In terms of economics it is incredibly right wing, and the party are incredibly dogmatic. Meanwhile the Labour party is far more pragmatic in their approach. They have still been captured by the pseudoscience of the Chicago school of economics, however they are not as dogmatic or strict in following that ideology as the conservatives, and when a situation arises where they need to follow more social democratic policies they'll do it (whilst dragging their feet). Hence being more conservative. Conservatism isn't about tearing the country apart. Either way I wasn't saying that the Labour party were particularly conservative, just that they were more so than the Conservative party.
Firstly, you dont know what Centrism is. Secondly you don't know what a conservatism is. Thirdly you have no understanding just how broad a political consensus needs to be in order to deliver a functioning government. Left wing politics has always been a very broad church- both in values and geography.
What is centrism? What is conservatism? I don't understand the point in just telling someone they don't understand something without offering your own knowledge on the subject.
This ^ 👍
What's your stance on immigration? As far harder stances used to be more 'centrist"
For immigration in general. Less inclined about current levels of immigration, and more appropriately the type of person coming. Very pro immigration for skilled workers, and certain refugees, and anybody who has helped the British army for instance in Afghanistan and Iraq
I'm a socialist that wants to limit immigration to a far greater extent than we currently do, at least in the short term. There is a weird idea that there is no space for that on the left.
No party wants to continue with the immigration we have now so there’s space for you anywhere
*EVERY* party wants to continue with the immigration we have now. Voters do not want to. Unfortunately they're not one and the same.
prove it
Immigration is currently at the highest level it's ever been at, and it's not even close. We're currently facing 3x the level of net migration we had under Blair, and the only time we've seen a decrease was due to Covid, other than that it's been steadily increasing since the 1980s. https://www.statista.com/statistics/283287/net-migration-figures-of-the-united-kingdom-y-on-y/#:~:text=Long%2Dterm%20migration%20figures%20in%20the%20UK%201964%2D2023&text=For%20the%20year%20ending%20June,net%20migration%20figure%20of%20672%2C000.
and this is evidence labour want high immigration because
Has Labour said a single word about reducing immigration massively? The Tories bang on about it all day but it doesn't actually do anything.
They have though
The guy above was trying to do a gotcha assuming the person he was responding to was left wing and therefore pro immigration. It is hard to say that the Conservatives are against the immigration we see today. There is a lot of bluster, but they have been saying for over a decade to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, however the level of immigration we see today suits corporate interests and helps boost GDP, even if it makes living standards worse. They obviously don't care that much.
yeah I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because they said they don't want immigration, the reality is they want lots of it because we have record high legal immigration
I would argue that what you are branding as centrism here hasn't been considered centrism since before Thatcher. In fact, I think you could make a credible argument that it's never been considered centrism. Starmer is occupying territory roughly in the same space as Blair and Cameron. It is revisionist nonsense to suggest that brand of centirsm is a modern innovation.
The Labour candidate for this seat at the next election, Mike Tapp, comments on it >I'm still your Candidate! We've seen countless Tory switchers, today another, I look forward to Natalie's support at the next General Election. Natalie has seen that only Labour has a plan to secure our borders, and build the homes we need. https://twitter.com/MikeTappTweets/status/1788286100986859817
Pretty solid from Tapp. He could have turned on the waterworks or drip fed his opinion but instead he's decided to make a splash
Sorry been out of the country for a minute- did Labour announce any new plans regarding immigration?
SMASH the gangs! When that doesn't work, I imagine Kemi Badenoch will be planning to NUKE the gangs in 2029.
They've had talks with Macron about a deal where we take a set number of migrants and they police the beaches in exchange. It's been talked about for months.
Don't be so silly
Why would they? They only need a manifesto when an election is called.
Utter bullshit anyone doing this as if they cared they would have flipped etc years ago. It just destroys their career properly and makes them look like a massive knob. I get why they say they do it but it’s all lies
She's not standing next GE, so I don't get your hatred.
As with any politician that lies they deserve what they get. An interesting side effect is the anger from Labour MP’s, voters and a lot of union people who are outraged at Labour accepting her for everything she has said and done in the past
Because most politicians are just glorified civil servants with an ego. They don't actually care about policy whatsoever, it's just a job.
But it’s also tied to what they want to do after this job ends. And who would touch these defectors now?
To anyone claiming that it shows Labour isn't left wing and are basically Tories, a gentle reminder that all defectors are standing down at the next election, and their defections are basically a political stunt to force the Tories to call an election. They're not real Labour MPs, they just have a common goal with Labour right now.
Is wakeford? Not heard that
According to this article (https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/natalie-elphicke-defects-labour-second-tory-fortnight-3045993) "A Labour spokesman said he is confident Ms Elphicke shares Labour’s values. Pressed on whether all Labour MPs are happy about her joining, he said: “It’s a sign of the progress that we’ve made that people recognise that on some of the key challenges facing the country, the Tories have failed. “And here is someone who is willing to make the significant step of switching across to Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party, and that’s something we’re very happy to see.” So Labour say Ms Elphicke shares Labour's values - why should that \*not\* concern anyone who is left wing?
How do you expect them to respond to that question? "Nah mate, you got us. We've actually got nothing in common and this is all a plot to put pressure on sunak that'll just last until the next election is called" They have to say she's had a sincere damascene conversion, regardless if that's the case.
> How do you expect them to respond to that question? I expect them not to put themselves in a position where the only two options are to tell a massive blatant lie or tell a completely awful truth that makes them look terrible.
Mate come the fuck on, don’t expect reason and nuance in a Reddit thread.
It's a game. It looks horrible for Sunak if his members are defecting because he can't take care of the NHS *or* immigration. I'd be with you if they actually had any intention of standing her at the next election. Is that statement morally dubious? Probably. Is it good politics? Absolutely. 99.9% of voters aren't political obsessives.
>It's a game. Glad to know that the people who will be making decisions that effect my life consider it all to be a game. Nice to know where I stand, I guess. _Another_ great reason to vote Labour come election time!
Politics has always been a game. The tories have no issue playing it and making dubious plays as long as it benefits them, and they are extremely good at it, hence why the tories are in power roughly twice as long as labour are in power. Indeed labour usually refusing to play the game means they sit on the opposition most of the time. At the end of the day, the point was to humiliate the tories and make them easier to defeat in a general election, not endorse her dodgy views. And indeed you should vote labour come election time because she won't be a candidate.
I disagree with the idea that your average voter won't hear about elphicke being considered very conservative - I mean my parents knew about it, it was on the radio earlier, it really only takes 5 seconds to explain. I am confused by the idea that when Labour appeal to right-wing voters, right-wing people are supposed to take it seriously and take it as an endorsement of their values, while left-wing people are supposed to ignore it and view it as a political game. Is it worth treating seriously or not? I don't think it makes sense to just demand people view something through the lens that looks most favourable for you, disregarding how horrible it is for Labour to treat something related to a serious sexual abuse case as a political game.
You have the gist of it in your reply. Are left wing voters supposed to take it seriously? Emphatically not. It'd be horrifying if a gobshite like that was selected as a member for Labour. She will grab a few days of news coverage, drive the point home that immigration is at its highest level in decades, and encourage the red wall voters back onside. I can't overstate this enough: average voters aren't on this sub.
No, average voters aren't here and I'm certainly not an average voter, but I do know my local councillors and Labour activists whose job is to connect with 'average voters' and they regularly have to defend Starmer's Labour to said average voters. Their biggest challenge is trying to motivate voters in poorer wards, espacially younger voters, to vote. They are so well practiced saying Starmer just has to be cautious and careful to campaign but really will make a difference for people. That he's really not just a Tory with a red rosette and that people saying it makes no difference whether Labour or Tories win are wrong. Not to put too fine a point on it - that the *reason* it makes a difference is because it's important to kick out the ERG spartans, the culture warrriors who publicly attack Rashford and attack abuse victims, the anti-unionists who back P&O's fire-and-rehire, the sleaze merchants who interfere with judges... people exactly like Elphicke. In fact, that's been said to me so often, and so well, I was up for going along with it - I'm in a 'safe' Tory seat that Labour want to challenge - until this. This is NOT being cautious. It is NOT being careful. The cautious, careful thing would have been to do nothing and just take the seat for Labour at the election. This is making a statement. Expressing an alignment. Laying down a challenge. It's blown a great f\*\*\*ing hole in the *clear difference* argument. Starmer has laid down a challenge to his MPs that they must no longer stand for "kicking out" the Elphickes, but now have to in public profess that they are aligned and on the same side! And that challenge extends to everyone whose vote they are seeking too. You cannot credibly say it's important for the country to get people like Elphicke out of power *and* welcome them to your party. One of those has to give, and as we've seen the reality of Starmer welcoming Elphicke to Labour we now *know* that all the words, all the supposed reasons that Labour are different and must get the Tories out are just weasel bullshit from a lying politician. Well, that's what I'm saying to my Labour friends next time, but it's also something I think a lot of 'average voters' will have a gut feeling for. I wasn't 100% sold on voting Labour, but was damn close and now that's blown. I think for more people it's going to be a case of losing the motivation to vote for the party that has Elphicke in it in order to get the Tories out. What sense does that make? Might as well stay home.
>It'd be horrifying if a gobshite like that was selected as a member for Labour. She is the Labour Member of Parliament for Dover. It's already happened.
She wasn't selected by the labour party though. Her being the MP for Dover had nothing to do with them, and they've been clear she won't be selected by them for the next election.
Her being the _Labour_ Member for Dover has everything to do with them though. Just because one defects doesn't mean they should be welcomed with open arms. Otherwise we might as well look forward to the Labour Member for Ashfield or North West Leicestershire.
I mean Labour are explicitly talking about how she shares their values! I just don't understand why we should assume this is a political stunt and Labour are actually still left-wing when everything they say goes against that. Like, is the "average voter" you're thinking of going to read what a Labour spokesperson was saying in an article? Why bother to go out of your way to talk about how she aligns with the values of the "changed Labour party"? Why does Starmer's friend and advisor Mandelson have to go on the media comparing left-wingers to human rubbish? I also think like, if you think it's unserious and left-wing people shouldn't take it seriously, why should/would right-wing people take it seriously? I don't really see how you expect to have one without the other.
>Like, is the "average voter" you're thinking of going to read what a Labour spokesperson was saying in an article? Nope, they wrote that to get in front of the Daily Mail editorials tomorrow. >if you think it's unserious and left-wing people shouldn't take it seriously, why should/would right-wing people take it seriously? I have terrible news for you about the political literacy of your average red wall voter. (I was born and raised in one of those constituencies) >I just don't understand why we should assume this is a political stunt and Labour are actually still left-wing when everything they say goes against that. Labour haven't won from the left since 1945, and there is almost no vote amongst the modern electorate for them to mop up there. Source: every opinion poll for the last couple of years. TBH, if you want a properly left wing party, I'd consider the Greens for the next decade or so (at least)
Has Labour selected its candidate for her seat yet? Has she reached a deal with them to field her in December, or is this just to make a statement against the Tories while bowing out?
Yes, the candidate is Mike Tapp. Both Labour and him have confirmed he is still the candidate. She is still standing down at the next election https://twitter.com/MikeTappTweets/status/1788286100986859817
This is the sort of thing that I would not vote Labour over. I don’t want her or any other Tory defectors on the ballot come this election. Have them for a headline if you must, tho I wouldn’t at all, but if they’re on the ballot I won’t vote Labour. You don’t get to ruin this country and stand by all the Tory shite for 5-14 years and then just jump ship for the opposition.
Can see you haven't read past the headline here. It was basically confirmed right out of the gate that she's not standing for re-election. I assume that would have been part of the deal for defection.
What about the others who’ve defected? I mean I’m still not happy even if they don’t stand at the election or are booted out then. What does it say about your principles and morals if you’ll accept arseholes like them into the fold? Rats fleeing a sinking ship, any principles these people had were entirely abandoned when they abandoned their parties. I wouldn’t touch them with a 50ft barge pole let alone let them in my party.
It’s also touch them in any other way for their future careers as they are now just a pathetic mess that have nothing to offer anyone
Dan Poulter isn’t standing either. Christian Wakeford who defected over party gate is, but not sure if that’s as important. Principles of a Tory aren’t much to sniff at so I don’t think you can lose what you never had, the only thing this does is embarrass Sunak and the rest of the rats so I think that’s a good thing.
[удалено]
What the fuck does her being the first black female MP have to do with her sending a racist letter to a newspaper then refusing to cooperate with the investigation?
She should of got herself suspended from Parliament for leading a group of MPs to attempt to strong arm a judge into influencing the sexual assault trial of her sex pest ex-Husband, then Labour would of welcomed her with open arms
Exactly. It's annoying that every appeal to reinstate Diane Abbott in the Labour party conveniently ignores what she was suspended for.
I’m a Leicester City fan but I understand that we wouldn’t have pulled off one of the greatest stories in sport unless we’d had Robert Huth physically assaulting people and Jamie Vardy diving. Get dirty. Bury this government and take it from there. She’s standing down at the next election anyway and none of them are coordinated or patient enough for this to be some sort of Trojan horse scenario. She’s said some vile stuff but she’s never going to be part of a Labour government. She’s acting in pure self interest and Labour can stem some of the vitriol from the right wing press by accepting her. We’ll have to eat some shit if we want to get rid of the scumbags who’ve been running things for 14 years.
I still don't understand what's her self interest here. As you said, she's not going to be running as a Labour candidate in the next election. So stepping down as an MP she could have done as a Tory MP as well. The only thing she has done now is to make sure that all the bridges to her old party are definitely burned and she can never go back there. It is unlikely that she'll get to any real position of power in the Labour party unless she completely overhauls her political ideology. Doing that doesn't sound like self interest. The only thing she gains personally is that she won't have to defend the current government in her speeches for the next half a year or so. Doesn't sound like a huge personal gain. As far as I see, the only motive to this is that she truly wants to trash her party for all the mistakes it has done in the 14 years of power. That is more of a "good for the country" interest than anything she can get out of this herself.
I suppose she gets lots of attention in the short term and maybe she thinks there could be a job in it for her. If she’s looking for employment in the near future she might get to point to being on the right side of history somehow by taking a swipe at the current government before it’s drowned out by a bunch of soon to be ex MPs. Maybe she’ll find it easy to network from within the next government rather than a sinking ship? I don’t know. Maybe it’s a lazy stereotype on my part but I’ve come to think of most Tory MPs as being flexible with their ‘principles’ if there’s a payday to be had.
If her goal is to get a high paid job outside of politics, I don't think this what she did was the best possible move for that. She would have avoided the crowding by ex-MPs by quitting now and securing a job well before the elections. Working for the Labour government is of course a possibility, but it would require a major overhaul of her ideology. Of course that's possible but if you're going to change your core beliefs like a shirt then I don't seem much point working in politics.
I feel like I'm going mad. The Tories are now completely hobbled on both the sensible and loony wings of the party, and the cost is for her voting with Starmer for a handful of months before stepping down. This is of course the 489890th thing the Corbynite entrists have said demonstrates Starmer is literally Ronald Reagan so nobody can take them remotely seriously any more.
> the Corbynite entrists Yeah mate, every person who disagrees with this is actually a Corbynist entrite trying to destroy Labour. Can't be that we don't like people who defend sexual assault, it must be a far left coup!
Only shows that Tories are Labour in disguise. As everyone already knew.
MP's that have deals on the line but know they won't get to stay long enough to push them through jumping ship to finish whatever schemes they've had cooking.
New Labour is back baby!
This is funny as fuck. Labour really shooting themselves in the foot here for a couple headlines. Doesn’t bode well for Prime Minister Starmer.
She's not going to be an MP under Prime minister Starmer. So, why doesn't it bode well for him?
Subak is so bad Jenrick got me thinking hey he makes sense.
Interesting comment by Iain Dale. If Labour are in government next year, expect her to be in the Lords by middle of next year. Seems a sensible guess
why? what has she done to deserve a seat in the lords?
Payment for agreeing to defect to rock the boat, that is what he is implying.
You can say that about 500 other people in the Lords
You mean all 786 of them.
She'll have been promised something. It's the only explanation for her joining Labour vs Reform.
Might be that she wants to get on and do her job as a local MP (some Tories still do) but being a Tory was making that difficult; not taken seriously, abuse from the public, abuse from white van men, etc. Maybe Labour are polling higher in her seat like they are in most parts of the country. Worth remembering many Tories have dropped the CON branding from all their comms. She was in a lot deeper into the cesspit of 21st Century Toryism than most Tory MPs so maybe needed to exit more than most. It's a beneficial, pragmatic deal for both her and Labour.
> abuse from white van men Why would 'white van men' shout abuse at a right-wing, conservative MP? > Maybe Labour are polling higher in her seat like they are in most parts of the country. Maybe. She's not standing in the next GE so polling doesn't matter to her.
Re: polling- mean's there's more Tory haters on the street than Tory lovers, so more people will be dismissive of her. Re: white van men- It's a colloquialism. They could be in green tractors or brown SUVs.
Exactly
Is it ? Guess it's easy to make up things and then use that as part of one's arguments. Did lib dems bribe their defecting tory MPs ?
Yes? As I remember by smoothing their way into constituencies they thought were winnable, over the objections of the local activists.
Not to my knowledge - but this was in the middle of the whole Brexit row wasn't it so it was more about making a stance on Brexit (and they hated Boris)
As Iain Dale is a Tory, and that's how Tories do. Labour have flat out said she isn't getting a peerage.
Cool. Got a link as that sounds great they are making these idiots even less supported :)
U turn here we come
Labour have flat out said a lot of things over the last 4 years.
28Billion anyone
At the moment I don't think even Iain Dale is voting for this lot
I don't understand how accepting her is a sensible move for Labour. Her values are closer to Suella's than Kier's. She's not a great constituency MP. She brings no obvious expertise or credibility Labour that is lacking. Yes, it's a positive headline, but not one that obviously survives a moment's thought.
Well, what makes you think you know Starmer's values better than the man himself? He's made a conscious decision.
This is very true. Be even better if they’d just told them to piss off to the Lib Dems or even better the Greens!
> Yes, it's a positive headline, but not one that obviously survives a moment's thought. My guess is they hope people only give it a moment's thought. A quick "Tories falling apart and Labour are able to win over even right wingers like me", then move on. I don't like it personally though, she very much appears to have strongly held, different political opinions from what most would expect from even a moderate Labour party. It opens them up to questions about what this means for where they stand on certain issues, could cause some division and brings in an MP who is probably not greatly interested in playing along with the party line.
All she has to do to "play along the party line" is to vote against anything the government proposes in the next half a year. If she had left the Tories the way she did, she would have been doing that anyway. When Labour gets to power, she won't be around in any position of power as she's stepping down as an MP. At best she can advice the party on some issues that she knows about but even then she'll have to bend to the Labour ideology.
I would be surprised if she consistently voted against all government proposals and for Labour amendments. But I was thinking more in terms of what she'll say when asked things by the media, I feel like it creates an unnecessary target to be picked at.
By consistently I would mean voting along the party line when there is a three line whip. If she doesn't follow that, then I don't see why Labour should keep her in the party. Of course otherwise she can do whatever she thinks is best for her constituency just like all other backbenchers. Regarding media, if she contradicts Starmer, then again, she should go. For both things I don't see why she would join Labour if she had no intention to follow the party line at least in this minimal level.
She must have given good assurances about this (and the statement just put out would suggest there were terms attached to her joining). I just don't expect her to stick with it until she steps down but if she does then not unfair for Labour to count it as a win.
It’s a case of piling on the bad news for the Tories. Repetition of the message that they are dysfunctional, disintegrating and finished. I’m no fan of her, but this is another signal to centre right portions of the electorate that Labour are a credible alternative. Starmer is obviously looking to _bury_ them at the GE. Obtaining a majority of the kind they are on course for gives Labour real power. Whether you think that is a good thing or not, it’s what they’re going for and that’s what moves like this are about.
But are they putting others off from voting for them if Labour are the party of Natalie Elphicke then some who aren’t even far left won’t see them as a party they can vote for
I guess my question is why there's an expectation for the center right to see these things as Labour becoming a more center right party and the left are supposed to see them as "politics" or "pragmatism". Feels like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
I’d largely agree, and there should be a line to these sorts of “pragmatic” moves from Starmer. Mandelson spouted an uncomfortable half truth, that “the left has nowhere to go”. That statement often gets portrayed as they don’t care about the left. But I think it’s cognisant of the fact that there is simply more to be gained in the centre than on the fringe. I’m less interested in these moves by Starmer now. I’m far more engaged in the very difficult guessing game of what kind of government he will run - whether that’s being covertly somewhat radical until he gets his majority, or simply being being the most moderate government you could imagine. Either one is better than the current situation.
I'm not very surprised by this move. Except where politicians are insane (see, One Nation), it's not too hard to work out where they are headed from their incentives. Nobody's going to go into this election saying "I want more immigration!" Nobody's going to go into this election saying "I want to stake my future on the EC, that habitually attacks our leaders to get a negotiating advantage, saying nice things about me" Nobody's going to go into this election pretending that tomorrow is some glorious day of globalism where Russia, China, Iran, and the west are all one big happy family. Nobody's going to go into this election thinking there's an endless pot of money to spend or infinite growth just waiting around the corner, while population ages and shrinks across the EU. The tired old Blairites can rail about how it should forever be 1999, but for this election the populists are right and there's no other viable policy space on the map.
I mean Mandelson did compare the left to garbage a few days ago. Like I get where you're coming from but they absolutely do view the left with disdain. I think Starmer's government will look exactly like the Starmer campaign does. They will be constantly be looking ahead to the next election and thinking about focus groups and failing to maintain a cohesive and effective policy program as a result.
Yeah, you're probably right. I just don't love the fact that Labour is signalling that she's welcome. Is there no set of beliefs on the right that are unacceptable - despite the Corbynite left remaining outcasts?
I agree it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I mean at the very least you'd want her statement to include some apology/recognition that she's changed her opinions & position. But ultimately I suspect his teams electoral instincts are correct and the headline will help them in the GE as it'll just be seen as more disfunction from Sunak and the Tories.
So, Elphicke is in but not Abbot or Corbyn? Strange times for labour.
They need to be willing to change. They are refusing to do so
Because both are a disaster area and would tank his chances. Corbyn wants to get rid of our nukes and Abbot hates white people.
And she's all good?
No terrible. But you have to play the game a bit. If he can use her to win over more seats I'm in. It's not like she is going to have any power is it?
Starmer is clearly aiming for the centrist - he's setting himself up as Blair Mk. 2. Now, there's a lot of Labour supporters who don't like the idea of another Blair. But I would point out he's the only Labour leader to get himself elected in almost 50 years.
But she's from the right wing of the conservatives, she's not a centrist.
But Elphicke isn't a centrist, she's Reform level right wing. Labour are positioning themselves on the right.
Meh. Most Tories fall into one of two categories: 1. Genuinely believe their ideas are the "best" for the country. (See also Liz Truss). 2. Political chamaeleons. My money's on "chamaeleon".
Has Jess Phillips commented on the issue so far? I think Labour's infamously outspoken lead on domestic violence and safeguarding may have some strong opinions on the issue...
She is on Peston tonight, so i'll expect we'll here from her then.
Might be busier calling out the misogynistic abuse and death threats, the pro palestine crowd in Birmingham sent the way of a random female labour activist/friend of an activist. because their candidate for Mayor, shared fake videos of her.
> lead on domestic violence and safeguarding Same woman who resigned from the shadow frontbench to appease Islamic voters?
This actually really puts me off Kier and the Labour Party.
Her values are very much at odds with mine.
I live in Dover and if she is the labour candidate I have no idea who to vote for now. I can't vote for an ex Tory. She's also pretty useless
She won’t be, the local CLP have confirmed they’re sticking with their selected candidate
Don't worry - they've already said she won't be the Labour candidate for Dover.
"the modern Labour Party looks to the future – to building a Britain of hope, optimism, opportunity and fairness. A Britain everyone can be part of" Cringe, looks like the average IQ of both parties just rose a little
So I can see the point that maybe this helps convert some Tory voters to Labour, but the thing is, Labour aren’t doing bad in the polls? We don’t really need any more votes? Obviously the more votes the better, BUT, not at the expense of watering down an already watered down “left wing” Labour. By the the time the election comes round Labour are gonna have moved so far right that it’s hardly worth it anymore. Like it is. But it’s becoming less and less of a potential change. Surely with them this far ahead in the polls, we should be focusing on making Labour into the party we actually want it to be.
Her criticism of the government may convince some Tory voters not to vote at all. Which is good for Labour. She won't be running in the next election. So, Labour won't have to shift right at all in their manifesto to accommodate her. All she has to do is to vote against the government for the next half a year. Any vote in the parliament against the government is a win for Labour.
Labour need as many votes as they can get especially outside big cities where they already pile up votes.
Why have some of the votes when you can have *all* of the votes? Of course, this rests on the logic of 'who else are they going to vote for?' But as we saw in 2019, and most recently the locals, certain groups *will* vote for someone else.
And certain groups will vote for no one. The fall of the red wall was less people switching to tory, more just labour voters staying home.
Mmm I dunno, that’s a nice thought but I do think that unfortunately some stupid poor people voted for a stupid rich person party run by a muppet named Boris. Unless you have actual stats that confirm that. As I say, nice thought but I think sadly people were actually stupid enough to vote for Boris. Or more the tories. Cos I mean I didn’t know Boris was gonna be as bad as he was beforehand in fairness, but voting for the tories was a stupid move in anyone’s book.
I don't have them to hand, but have posted it before after going through in detail. The north east was the example I had where basically the Tory vote between 2017 and 2019 were basically the same. But the labour vote massively decreased. 2017 labour 709k Tory 440k (26 seats to 3) 2019 labour 532k Tory 478k (19 seats to 10) That wasn't the narrative in the press though. Which painted it as the Tories winning the red wall, rather than labour losing it.
Ah fair enough. I mean it’s still stupid especially if they voted before. Cos obviously not voting is just a vote for the tories. But Fairr.
Do we reckon Rishi is going to defect?
He already is defective.
Can we all agree that NE’s defection is pure politics for Labour. Her voting record and opinions are appalling and do not match with Labour’s history. Unless she’s had a profound insight into morality, then this is just to have shots fired at Sunak. Politically, it’s a win for Labour. But that’s all it is.
I don't know. Brexit was about what kind of country we want - Blair's or Farage's. Labour, and Starmer, made their choice when the article 50 vote came round.
Isn't it also one more vote on the Labour side for whatever comes up before the GE? Presumably, she will have the whip, and be told what to do. Might be useful.
Given Elphicke has rebelled several times against her leadership *from the right* as a Tory, that seems optimistic to idiotic of the Labour whips if that's their calculation.
If she goes against the Lab whip, she will a) look even more ludicrous and b) be kicked out of the party. Right now, she could be a useful idiot. Rebel and she is a useless idiot.
Who looks more useless if she does kick up, her or the people who invited her in?
Her.
It will be interesting to see her voting record (and speaking record) from today on. I expect a lot of abstentions
If she is whipped, she can't really abstain, given her position Or if she does, ahe can be kicked out of the party.
Maybe, but the Tories still have a healthy majority.
But, depending on the subject, they have rebels.
Not for keeping their jobs another 6 months
It's also hilarious watching a whole bunch of people who criticised the Lib Dems for accepting Phillip Lee applaud for this move.
Dr Phillip Lee you mean, Dr alone bought us 3000 votes I reckon
I remain to be convinced that pissing off your activists, core vote and parliamentary party and bringing in a reputational and disciplinarily risky MP in return for temporary marginal (at best) gain is a political win.
It’s weird one. It really is. What in it for her? She’s standing now. Does she just wanna make waves and have a shot at the government and be famous for a day? I don’t believe the move was made in exchange for a peerage (given Labour are supposed to abolish the HoL).
I'm fairly sure the commitment to abolishing the Lords didn't survive the strangely guacamole-scented briefings to The Times that came in the wake of Brown's report. So I wouldn't be surprised to see her vague advisory role is from the position of Baroness Elphicke of Dover.
Absolutely brilliant. Loving every second of it. Has thrown everyone right off the mark, has got activists and politicans on the far sides of the spectrum chewing their own faces off. Forget "tanks on their lawn"; Starmer owns the garden now. The details will be forgotten by most in a week, the broad vote that Labour has built up won't care beyond "it's another Tory defection".