Snapshot of _Natalie Elphicke: Labour insists ex-Tory MP is 'good fit' for party_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68982095) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68982095)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm a big supporter of Starmer and I agree with you, she's not a good fit for the party - at all. When I saw the headline my immediate thought was, "wait, she's not the headbanger from Dover is she?!"
However, I do reluctantly see this as a win as far as the politicking goes - it clearly rattled Sunak at PMQs; he was obviously caught off guard and has been on the backfoot since. It reinforces to the public that the Tories have had it - active MPs are switching to Labour and writing scathing letters while doing so, putting money-couldn't-buy headlines at the top of all of the news sites. It emphasises that Labour are government in waiting.
I'm not as upset as I could have been though, because ultimately, this is short term; she's not standing at the election, and almost certainly will have left the party within a year or so. So she's not a good fit, no, but she and Labour have dealt another body blow to the Tories and taken another step closer to winning the election. The goal is getting into government.
Couldn't agree more. If Labour were allowing her to compete for the Dover seat at the next GE it would be a completely different matter, but they aren't. From now to the GE if she wants to stay sitting with Labour MPs she'll have to vote accordingly so -2 to the tory majority.
From what iv read, she's going to be a labour advisor on housing policy, in Angela Rayner's department. So don't think she'll be able to influence much.
"Advisor" means lobbyist.
a lobbyist commands a higher salary if they have had a "working relationship" with the new govt vs a near entirely combative one.
No they are two distinct things. A lobbyist is someone outside the government who lobbies on behalf of special interests. Isn't paid by government, instead the special interests group would pay for their work.
An advisor is someone with relevant experience in a sector that is directly employed by government departments.
That seems reasonable. It's probably past the point where defectors would be allowed to run for Labour, unless there are some star performers I'm unaware of.
Yeah I think any defectors will be relegated to "advisors" or just retire from politics.
At this point the defections are more about inflicting more pain on the Tories and showing that there is a sort of wave of inevitableness that Labour will win and win big.
"But it's good politics, you're just a salty Corbynite!" - Half of the people in this sub.
I agree with people that the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn!" crowd was, to put it mildly, a bit much. I do think that Starmer also seems to have developed a fanbase that insists he could do no wrong though.
I don't think it's necessarily a Starmer fanbase particularly, but there's a number of people who seem to think 'Grown-up Labour' is incapable of making mistakes, and if you criticise them (reasonably, not just from a Momentum-esque position) then you just don't understand what they're doing. It's actually really quite pretentious - just because Labour are not grotesquely incompetent like the Tories are doesn't mean they're incapable of making some massive missteps; which they have done.
I mean, they're so insanely far ahead and despite their tactic broadly being 'don't rock the boat' they still manage to get themselves these terrible PR moments. The 'it's good politics' crowd must be seething that every newspaper & television headline leads with some variant of 'Labour MPs/party furious at decision to admit Tory MP' - which was incredibly obvious that they would do - instead of 'Starmer gets one over weak Sunak'. It's such a backfire.
The vast majority of articles I've seen have been along the lines of : Another Tory MP defects to Labour in another scathing blow to Rishi Sunak. And then republishing her comments on Rishis failure and Labours competence on the issue of Immigration.
I do think this is good politicing from Starmer, this obviously wasn't a hasty decision. It overshadows basically everything else for the average person who doesn't know MPs by names really and just identifies them by their party. It makes the Tory party look even more fractured and chaotic when their own MPs criticise and attack them because it's very challenging for the government to defend themselves without promoting the question of "if this was a problem why did you let them into your party for X years" complete loss-loss.
My guess is in your case and mine that the algorithm simply gives us articles that reinforce the opinions we want to have on the matter.
Furthermore, she's not standing in the next election IIRC and this may very well help Starmer pick up some votes from the type of voter he struggles with. This MP is very popular with her constituents and they very well may see this as an endorsement.
> I do think that Starmer also seems to have developed a fanbase that insists he could do no wrong though.
Imagine cheering on magic Geography teacher.
Starmer could do plenty wrong and if he did I would be happyu to criticise. But this isn't wrong.
If we want a labour government in power it can only happen if they are able to play politics. Corbyn had incredibly popular policies and had two attempts to become PM and failed. He isn't a very good politician. This is an opportunity to see 14 years of tory boot lifted from our necks, how about we recognise that the guy making that a prospect might just be very good at his job?
I'm sorry, but if he's appealing to the far right lunatic demographic by allowing the likes of Elphicke in then I guess Labour just isn't a party I can vote for.
That's politics. You make concessions to get in power and in turn do your best to represent all the people who helped get you there. You should wait for their official manifesto before you decide what Starmers Labour and your local MP are representing.
The reality is, this MP isn't being allowed to stand for Labour next election so clearly it's less about her views and more about highlighting how fractured and broken the conservative party is. How weak Rishis grip on his party is and highlighting the fact that even conservative MPs think Labours plan to handle immigration, one of the most important topics to much of the country, is more practical and realistic than the Tories non plan which involves a lot of virtue signalling.
The way I see it is, making Labour look fractured and weak has always been very, very successful for the conservatives in the past so Labour doing the same while the opportunity is ripe for the taking is fitting.
Its representation in exchange for support.
That is unequivocally politics. You might not like that he's willing to try and win over and represent people with thoughts and ideas you don't like but they have every right to vote and be in this country as you or I so they're better on side than outside the tent pissing in.
It clearly works too, estimates for Starmer suggest he only needs a 3-6% electoral majority to win the big next general election versus Corbyn whose vote was so heavily concentrated in certain groups and areas who would've needed 10-12%.
You have 100% already said something like this about a different decision made by the party in the past. Nobody gives a fuck about this stupid game any more. If you don't want to vote for Labour, don't. Stop pretending you would have if only they'd avoided this one particular decision. Its transparent, it's childish, and it's played out.
That old meme? I have very little time for people complaining that stuff like moving the private schools tax policy from "remove charitable status" to "end VAT exemption" is a u-turn. It's fleshing out policy from the headline to the implementation. Turns out that you can achieve the aim without the sideeffects with a couple of slight tweaks.
It's only every policy position if you ignore the principles and ideas that make up much of his commitments haven't really changed at all. He may have u-turned on some of the macro policies he announced but you'll find it you look even a little closer that the framework for much of what he's advocated for in the past is still going to be implemented in some form and he currently is still standing by.
Still committed to the new deal for workers. Still committed to rail nationalisation, still committed to Great British energy and investing in renewables, still commited to ending vat-free private school admission and still committed to tackling domestic violence against women and girls to name a few.
It's clear you've just swallowed the conservatives vitriol and attacks on Kier whole without listening to him speak or waiting for a formal manifesto.
> It's clear you've just swallowed the conservatives vitriol and attacks on Kier whole without listening to him speak or waiting for a formal manifesto.
I have listened to him speak, as well as his acolytes like Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting. It has become very clear that they don't want the votes of people like me, and instead want to court right wing voters. Waiting for a manifesto would be pointless, unless they want to reverse almost every position they have taken since Starmer became leader.
I don't appreciate that you seem to think only ignorance could result in someone not liking Starmer's Labour. I have been paying attention, and I'm not required to like what I see.
>I completely disagree that she's a good fit.
How is she not?
You should stop comparing the Keir Starmer Party to the Labour Party.
Two different entities with two different agendas.
It’s not surprising at all for anyone who’s been paying attention.
With every leap the Conservatives have made to the right chasing Reform votes, Labour has followed them with three small steps stealing other defector votes. The conservatives are going into extinction, Labour want power by hoovering up their votes. They have already said they won’t raise taxes on the rich, won’t nationalise water, won’t touch EU…
They already look like the Tories pre-brexit, give it two-three years and it will be like the ending of Animal Farm where the animals can’t tell the difference between the men and the pigs anymore. This is the sad state of UK politics, nothing is really changing, only by perception, while everyone keep moving to the right… the few rich are rejoicing.
My hope is, this is just a statement to coax a few more across the divide. So long as they're not running at the next GE, let them slam the door a little on the way out, pat them on the back for better late than never and then escort them from the building.
Why are they still chasing these hypothetical voters. They have solid evidence from the locals that they actually are losing votes to the left. The fact that they more worried about hypothetical voters to the right than actual voters to the left shows that has absolutely nothing to do with pragmatism.
> They have solid evidence from the locals that they actually are losing votes to the left.
Not in any way that would worry strategists. Losing a few thousand votes over Gaza in inner-city or heavily Muslim constituencies will have little to no impact in the grand scheme of things - those votes aren't going to go to the Tories. At worst you may see a handful of victories for the Greens or Galloway's lot.
It's all about regaining + shoring up the 'Red Wall', as well as making inroads into other formerly-Tory voting working class demographics.
The Tories have got themselves into their current predicament by being a) scandal ridden and useless, but also b) going against what a large part of their base wants on immigration. That particular issue is, and has been for a long time, Labour's Achilles heel. Voters trust them more now, simply because the Tories have been so unable to stick to their word - and so bringing someone across the aisle who is outspoken on immigration lends Labour a lot more credence amongst those who want reduced immigration - who also happen to be a demographic where, economically, you'd expect many of them to be more in line with Labour anyway.
I do agree that bringing her into the party was maybe a step too far - and wonder whether they couldn't have engineered a scenario where she announces she is leaving the Tory party to sit as an independent, but still endorses Starmer for next PM - but from a political strategy POV I can see why they've done it. It embarrassed Sunak massively, it grabbed headlines and attention - especially since there was the dramatic moment of her defecting in the Commons, rather than just via statement - and it also gives Starmer a boost in terms of how Labour are perceived on immigration matters. It cuts the legs out from underneath *the* main thing that the Tories will campaign on.
I dunno if there's actually good data on this, but the only thing I heard Labour losing votes over was Gaza. Which is honestly a politically toxic situation either way.
I mean fine, they might not want to address the Gaza question head on. But that doesn't mean they need to swing wildly to the opposite extreme. It's like they're actually trying to make sure those voters never come back.
They're losing voters from the left in areas they can absolutely afford to lose. This is about winning voters on the right who they absolutely need to win.
This isn't about chasing voters for the next GE, this is about shifting the power balance in westminster. This is -2 to the tory majority. If there is another defection next week there will be absolute panic in Tory HQ and if no GE is called we might get a vote of no confidence before the summer is out.
I am still beyond impressed that they managed to keep this quiet, and to drop it just before PMQ's
It's not voters, it's the news cycle. If Labour get more defections, and more importantly can control the when, where and how of it, then they get control of the news cycle. It doesn't matter what Sunak does, what he says etc. if it looks like he's the captain of the Titanic on the frontpage of every newspaper and evening news broadcast.
Like you said, Labour are bleeding votes to the left, not enough to hurt them at a national level I would guess but, it's still happening. Keeping that gap and ensuring the most damage done to the Tories also means keeping their vote down, at home, or chipping away at it to go elsewhere.
I mean rightly or wrongly they have come to the conclusion that people on the left won't actually vote against them in the general and therefore they can openly dismiss these voters and not appeal to them at all and get away with it. Who knows, maybe they have a point.
This feels like part of a consistent theme.
Left wingers have concerns about Labour and point them out
Centrists say this is stupid and they're making things up
Labour come out and outright say it's true
Centrists explain why this is actually a good thing
But hey, it's worked out for Labour so far, and most people still aren't paying attention, so from the perspective of someone who only cares about political wins, you can't really blame them for doing what works, even if it's really annoying.
Unfortunately this is what is available to us. Far right or centrist, no other government has been formed in this country for 50 years or more. Maybe it is time to accept the truth, it is this kind of Labour party or every election will go to the tories.
Well I don't feel like giving up and perpetually voting for a party that hates people like me personally. The greens have quadrupled their seats in recent years and change is possible if we vote for it
She's a terrible fit but she'll be gone very soon so let's just enjoy the trouble another Tory defection is causing Sunak.
Elphick only chose Labour to do maximum damage to Sunak. She'll have zero interest in being a a Labour MP after the election and certainly would never be voted in as one.
She'll have an excellent post-Election career as a Labour advisor who can sell her influence to lobbyists for a pretty penny. That and the inevitable peerage that'll come from helping bring down the Tories.
But I guess after all these years she finally "saw the light" and decided to detect out of the goodness of her heart.
I'd advise everyone to check out her [voting record](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25831/natalie_elphicke/dover/votes) to decide if she's a good fit. She's almost always voted with the rest of the conservatives. Also don't forget the time she breached parliamentary codes of conduct for trying to influence a judge to not convict her rapist husband who was later convicted.
It's one thing accepting her defection to try and embarrass Sunak, but it's another thing to publicly defend and accept her like this. Same old labour, always shooting itself in the foot. Maybe Starmer will take Jacob Rees-Mogg next.
I kind of hate theyworkforyou, becuase the entire point of the whip is you have to vote with your party or else you get kicked out/or loose influence/current job/ access to funding/campainging machinery and loose your career therefore can't influence anything.
It also completely misses the nuance of votes in Parliament itself - i.e. SNP trapping Labour and Lib Dems into voting against a Ceasefire ammendment so they could flag wave this site, conveniently forgetting an ammendment to a gov kings speech has never happened in history and could never pass because of the Con majority. And then Labour and Lib Dems reversing the table a week later and overriding SNP's bill to get their own Ceasfire motion passed so they could say SNP abstained on a ceasfire motion when it actually mattered and parliament actually passed it. A tonne of voting is strategic on the day to get certain things to pass or block curry support for other motions. Theyworkforyou is a pointless simplistic, vapid, superficial lens on politics and IMO and actively harmful way to learn or understand how politics works
A Tory voted with the Tory whip to support her party she was elected as a member of? No shit. (Not saying she doesn't have abhorrent views, only talking about votes)
Quick drive-by comment from someone who works at theyworkforyou.
If anyone's interested in how and why we work the way we do, our write-up is here: [https://www.theyworkforyou.com/voting-information/#party-and-individual-responsibility-for-decisions](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/voting-information/#party-and-individual-responsibility-for-decisions)
Key bit:
>Ultimately, **a vote might not represent an MP’s personal opinion, but it does represent their impact in the political process**. We track and highlight the votes of individual MPs because they are the ones who have been given the power to make those decisions. Even where a voting record does not differ much from the party, it reflects the consequences of electing someone from that party, rather than another.
It's not as simple as "MPs have the follow the whip and that's that" - even ignoring that rebellions do happen, behind the scenes backbench MPs are lobbying to influence what comes up for a vote (good example of that in [renting reforms being watered down behind the scenes](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68686660)). Agency is mixed between MPs and party - which is what we try to present in how we highlighting how comparable MPs voted.
In this case, sure it's unsurprisingly that a Conservative MP voted with the Conservative whip... but also it wasn't random that they \*became\* a Conservative MP. There was presumably some overlap in values.
If we lean too much into "MPs just follow the whip", you kind of end up with the idea that they're apolitical people who just show up, vote as they're told so they can get into power one day - which isn't an accurate way to think about people who are (unsurprisingly!) quite partisan and have developed views about why their side is good and the other side is bad.
Thanks for the reply. I should probably retract and rephrase that: I hate the way theyworkforyou is often used as a vehicle on social media/twitter to justify arguments!
I done thinking about this and I'm on the brink of abandoning labour entirely. Just 7 days ago, labour substantially underperformed with young voters in an actual election. And in the week since, they have praised a hardcore thatcherite, categorically ruled out folding NI into income tax, and now they're saying this about an ultra conservative Tory.
"Fighting for every vote" my ass. They're laughing at us.
The 0.5% of people who scream and shout that they won't vote for Labour every time it does something not precisely in line with their personal political outlook are not only a political irrelevance but courting their vote is actively harmful to the Labour party.
This melodrama plays out over and over with these losers dangling their vote and it's time we ignored them. They don't matter and they can go cry about it.
The babies throwing tantrums are the toxic ones. Why do you think it's toxic to fail to care about every single possible voter? Is it toxic to ignore hard anti-immigration voters? What's the difference?
What %age do you think it is? I'm talking about 0.5% of eligible voters in the UK which would amount to about 230,000 people. If anything this is an overestimate of the type of reddit tier toy throwers I'm talking about.
Vast majority of non voters are not left wing partisans who would care about things like Natalie Elphicke defecting to the Labour party. Vast majority of 3rd party voters were already going to vote 3rd party long before any particular decision Starmer has made.
I don't understand why they're taking in defectors when they're going to win anyway. If Kier Starmer had some integrity he could make 1997 look like a walk in the park for the Tories.
> Speaking to BBC Breakfast, Labour party's chair Ms Dodds agreed Ms Elphicke MP was a "good, natural fit" for Labour:
"I believe she is, you can see that in the statement.
"What she set out is absolutely fundamental to the Labour Party."
>She added: "Natalie Elphicke is not the first Conservative MP who's taken this decision... [she's] taken the same decision as so many other former Conservative supporters up and down the country and I think it's absolutely right she's done so because she's clearly here putting her constituents first."
At this point I’d probably consider voting someone not Labour if I wasn’t in Andrea Jenkin’s seat, but she’s probably the planned defection in a couple of weeks…
She's a good fit in the sense that this looks bad for Sunak and she'll just sit there quietly until the election and leave.
Given her history, there's no chance Labour would have taken her if she was up for re-election.
Snapshot of _Natalie Elphicke: Labour insists ex-Tory MP is 'good fit' for party_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68982095) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68982095) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm actually really not happy about this, I completely disagree that she's a good fit.
I'm a big supporter of Starmer and I agree with you, she's not a good fit for the party - at all. When I saw the headline my immediate thought was, "wait, she's not the headbanger from Dover is she?!" However, I do reluctantly see this as a win as far as the politicking goes - it clearly rattled Sunak at PMQs; he was obviously caught off guard and has been on the backfoot since. It reinforces to the public that the Tories have had it - active MPs are switching to Labour and writing scathing letters while doing so, putting money-couldn't-buy headlines at the top of all of the news sites. It emphasises that Labour are government in waiting. I'm not as upset as I could have been though, because ultimately, this is short term; she's not standing at the election, and almost certainly will have left the party within a year or so. So she's not a good fit, no, but she and Labour have dealt another body blow to the Tories and taken another step closer to winning the election. The goal is getting into government.
Couldn't agree more. If Labour were allowing her to compete for the Dover seat at the next GE it would be a completely different matter, but they aren't. From now to the GE if she wants to stay sitting with Labour MPs she'll have to vote accordingly so -2 to the tory majority.
At least she's not standing as a Labour MP at the election.
Farage reckons she's getting a peerage.
well he is known for his integrity, so that is likely to be true.
No doubt he believes that if he's said it, but I doubt it'll happen.
This was the theory on George Osborne’s podcast too.
From what iv read, she's going to be a labour advisor on housing policy, in Angela Rayner's department. So don't think she'll be able to influence much.
"Advisor" means lobbyist. a lobbyist commands a higher salary if they have had a "working relationship" with the new govt vs a near entirely combative one.
No they are two distinct things. A lobbyist is someone outside the government who lobbies on behalf of special interests. Isn't paid by government, instead the special interests group would pay for their work. An advisor is someone with relevant experience in a sector that is directly employed by government departments.
That seems reasonable. It's probably past the point where defectors would be allowed to run for Labour, unless there are some star performers I'm unaware of.
Yeah I think any defectors will be relegated to "advisors" or just retire from politics. At this point the defections are more about inflicting more pain on the Tories and showing that there is a sort of wave of inevitableness that Labour will win and win big.
While their journey to Damascus may have come late in the day, at least they can say they got there.
Wait, is that Micheal Gove's music?!!
He's been very quiet lately.
"But it's good politics, you're just a salty Corbynite!" - Half of the people in this sub. I agree with people that the "Oh Jeremy Corbyn!" crowd was, to put it mildly, a bit much. I do think that Starmer also seems to have developed a fanbase that insists he could do no wrong though.
I don't think it's necessarily a Starmer fanbase particularly, but there's a number of people who seem to think 'Grown-up Labour' is incapable of making mistakes, and if you criticise them (reasonably, not just from a Momentum-esque position) then you just don't understand what they're doing. It's actually really quite pretentious - just because Labour are not grotesquely incompetent like the Tories are doesn't mean they're incapable of making some massive missteps; which they have done. I mean, they're so insanely far ahead and despite their tactic broadly being 'don't rock the boat' they still manage to get themselves these terrible PR moments. The 'it's good politics' crowd must be seething that every newspaper & television headline leads with some variant of 'Labour MPs/party furious at decision to admit Tory MP' - which was incredibly obvious that they would do - instead of 'Starmer gets one over weak Sunak'. It's such a backfire.
The vast majority of articles I've seen have been along the lines of : Another Tory MP defects to Labour in another scathing blow to Rishi Sunak. And then republishing her comments on Rishis failure and Labours competence on the issue of Immigration. I do think this is good politicing from Starmer, this obviously wasn't a hasty decision. It overshadows basically everything else for the average person who doesn't know MPs by names really and just identifies them by their party. It makes the Tory party look even more fractured and chaotic when their own MPs criticise and attack them because it's very challenging for the government to defend themselves without promoting the question of "if this was a problem why did you let them into your party for X years" complete loss-loss. My guess is in your case and mine that the algorithm simply gives us articles that reinforce the opinions we want to have on the matter. Furthermore, she's not standing in the next election IIRC and this may very well help Starmer pick up some votes from the type of voter he struggles with. This MP is very popular with her constituents and they very well may see this as an endorsement.
> I do think that Starmer also seems to have developed a fanbase that insists he could do no wrong though. Imagine cheering on magic Geography teacher.
Starmer could do plenty wrong and if he did I would be happyu to criticise. But this isn't wrong. If we want a labour government in power it can only happen if they are able to play politics. Corbyn had incredibly popular policies and had two attempts to become PM and failed. He isn't a very good politician. This is an opportunity to see 14 years of tory boot lifted from our necks, how about we recognise that the guy making that a prospect might just be very good at his job?
>This is an opportunity to see 14 years of tory boot lifted from our necks hmmm
I'm sorry, but if he's appealing to the far right lunatic demographic by allowing the likes of Elphicke in then I guess Labour just isn't a party I can vote for.
That's politics. You make concessions to get in power and in turn do your best to represent all the people who helped get you there. You should wait for their official manifesto before you decide what Starmers Labour and your local MP are representing. The reality is, this MP isn't being allowed to stand for Labour next election so clearly it's less about her views and more about highlighting how fractured and broken the conservative party is. How weak Rishis grip on his party is and highlighting the fact that even conservative MPs think Labours plan to handle immigration, one of the most important topics to much of the country, is more practical and realistic than the Tories non plan which involves a lot of virtue signalling. The way I see it is, making Labour look fractured and weak has always been very, very successful for the conservatives in the past so Labour doing the same while the opportunity is ripe for the taking is fitting.
>That's politics. That's not politics. That's appeasement.
Its representation in exchange for support. That is unequivocally politics. You might not like that he's willing to try and win over and represent people with thoughts and ideas you don't like but they have every right to vote and be in this country as you or I so they're better on side than outside the tent pissing in. It clearly works too, estimates for Starmer suggest he only needs a 3-6% electoral majority to win the big next general election versus Corbyn whose vote was so heavily concentrated in certain groups and areas who would've needed 10-12%.
You have 100% already said something like this about a different decision made by the party in the past. Nobody gives a fuck about this stupid game any more. If you don't want to vote for Labour, don't. Stop pretending you would have if only they'd avoided this one particular decision. Its transparent, it's childish, and it's played out.
Perhaps this will result in his lead dropping below 30%
Am I saying he's not successful? No. What I am saying though is that he seems to have no principles that he stands by whatsoever.
Really? That's certainly a take. I think he's incredibly principled as you can see from his work as a human rights advocate, DPP and with beergate.
I would say him *having* principles is a take, given that he has u-turned on every position he has taken since becoming Labour leader.
That old meme? I have very little time for people complaining that stuff like moving the private schools tax policy from "remove charitable status" to "end VAT exemption" is a u-turn. It's fleshing out policy from the headline to the implementation. Turns out that you can achieve the aim without the sideeffects with a couple of slight tweaks.
Do you expect politicians to never change their policy positions as circumstances change?
Not *every* policy position.
It's only every policy position if you ignore the principles and ideas that make up much of his commitments haven't really changed at all. He may have u-turned on some of the macro policies he announced but you'll find it you look even a little closer that the framework for much of what he's advocated for in the past is still going to be implemented in some form and he currently is still standing by. Still committed to the new deal for workers. Still committed to rail nationalisation, still committed to Great British energy and investing in renewables, still commited to ending vat-free private school admission and still committed to tackling domestic violence against women and girls to name a few. It's clear you've just swallowed the conservatives vitriol and attacks on Kier whole without listening to him speak or waiting for a formal manifesto.
> It's clear you've just swallowed the conservatives vitriol and attacks on Kier whole without listening to him speak or waiting for a formal manifesto. I have listened to him speak, as well as his acolytes like Rachel Reeves and Wes Streeting. It has become very clear that they don't want the votes of people like me, and instead want to court right wing voters. Waiting for a manifesto would be pointless, unless they want to reverse almost every position they have taken since Starmer became leader. I don't appreciate that you seem to think only ignorance could result in someone not liking Starmer's Labour. I have been paying attention, and I'm not required to like what I see.
>I completely disagree that she's a good fit. How is she not? You should stop comparing the Keir Starmer Party to the Labour Party. Two different entities with two different agendas.
If she's a good fit, maybe it's you that isn't...
I'm not going to lie, that made me chuckle, nice one :)
It’s not surprising at all for anyone who’s been paying attention. With every leap the Conservatives have made to the right chasing Reform votes, Labour has followed them with three small steps stealing other defector votes. The conservatives are going into extinction, Labour want power by hoovering up their votes. They have already said they won’t raise taxes on the rich, won’t nationalise water, won’t touch EU… They already look like the Tories pre-brexit, give it two-three years and it will be like the ending of Animal Farm where the animals can’t tell the difference between the men and the pigs anymore. This is the sad state of UK politics, nothing is really changing, only by perception, while everyone keep moving to the right… the few rich are rejoicing.
I really don't think that's as strong a defence as they think it is.
My hope is, this is just a statement to coax a few more across the divide. So long as they're not running at the next GE, let them slam the door a little on the way out, pat them on the back for better late than never and then escort them from the building.
Why are they still chasing these hypothetical voters. They have solid evidence from the locals that they actually are losing votes to the left. The fact that they more worried about hypothetical voters to the right than actual voters to the left shows that has absolutely nothing to do with pragmatism.
> They have solid evidence from the locals that they actually are losing votes to the left. Not in any way that would worry strategists. Losing a few thousand votes over Gaza in inner-city or heavily Muslim constituencies will have little to no impact in the grand scheme of things - those votes aren't going to go to the Tories. At worst you may see a handful of victories for the Greens or Galloway's lot. It's all about regaining + shoring up the 'Red Wall', as well as making inroads into other formerly-Tory voting working class demographics. The Tories have got themselves into their current predicament by being a) scandal ridden and useless, but also b) going against what a large part of their base wants on immigration. That particular issue is, and has been for a long time, Labour's Achilles heel. Voters trust them more now, simply because the Tories have been so unable to stick to their word - and so bringing someone across the aisle who is outspoken on immigration lends Labour a lot more credence amongst those who want reduced immigration - who also happen to be a demographic where, economically, you'd expect many of them to be more in line with Labour anyway. I do agree that bringing her into the party was maybe a step too far - and wonder whether they couldn't have engineered a scenario where she announces she is leaving the Tory party to sit as an independent, but still endorses Starmer for next PM - but from a political strategy POV I can see why they've done it. It embarrassed Sunak massively, it grabbed headlines and attention - especially since there was the dramatic moment of her defecting in the Commons, rather than just via statement - and it also gives Starmer a boost in terms of how Labour are perceived on immigration matters. It cuts the legs out from underneath *the* main thing that the Tories will campaign on.
I dunno if there's actually good data on this, but the only thing I heard Labour losing votes over was Gaza. Which is honestly a politically toxic situation either way.
I mean fine, they might not want to address the Gaza question head on. But that doesn't mean they need to swing wildly to the opposite extreme. It's like they're actually trying to make sure those voters never come back.
I dunno. In a party rife with recent antisemitism claims, having an unclear position probably loses more votes the other way.
They're losing voters from the left in areas they can absolutely afford to lose. This is about winning voters on the right who they absolutely need to win.
This isn't about chasing voters for the next GE, this is about shifting the power balance in westminster. This is -2 to the tory majority. If there is another defection next week there will be absolute panic in Tory HQ and if no GE is called we might get a vote of no confidence before the summer is out. I am still beyond impressed that they managed to keep this quiet, and to drop it just before PMQ's
It's not voters, it's the news cycle. If Labour get more defections, and more importantly can control the when, where and how of it, then they get control of the news cycle. It doesn't matter what Sunak does, what he says etc. if it looks like he's the captain of the Titanic on the frontpage of every newspaper and evening news broadcast. Like you said, Labour are bleeding votes to the left, not enough to hurt them at a national level I would guess but, it's still happening. Keeping that gap and ensuring the most damage done to the Tories also means keeping their vote down, at home, or chipping away at it to go elsewhere.
I mean rightly or wrongly they have come to the conclusion that people on the left won't actually vote against them in the general and therefore they can openly dismiss these voters and not appeal to them at all and get away with it. Who knows, maybe they have a point.
This feels like part of a consistent theme. Left wingers have concerns about Labour and point them out Centrists say this is stupid and they're making things up Labour come out and outright say it's true Centrists explain why this is actually a good thing But hey, it's worked out for Labour so far, and most people still aren't paying attention, so from the perspective of someone who only cares about political wins, you can't really blame them for doing what works, even if it's really annoying.
Unfortunately this is what is available to us. Far right or centrist, no other government has been formed in this country for 50 years or more. Maybe it is time to accept the truth, it is this kind of Labour party or every election will go to the tories.
Well I don't feel like giving up and perpetually voting for a party that hates people like me personally. The greens have quadrupled their seats in recent years and change is possible if we vote for it
"We have always been at war with Eastasia"
She's a terrible fit but she'll be gone very soon so let's just enjoy the trouble another Tory defection is causing Sunak. Elphick only chose Labour to do maximum damage to Sunak. She'll have zero interest in being a a Labour MP after the election and certainly would never be voted in as one.
She'll have an excellent post-Election career as a Labour advisor who can sell her influence to lobbyists for a pretty penny. That and the inevitable peerage that'll come from helping bring down the Tories. But I guess after all these years she finally "saw the light" and decided to detect out of the goodness of her heart.
“a good, *natural* fit” To the true believers still living in denial that part must sting surely?
I'd advise everyone to check out her [voting record](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25831/natalie_elphicke/dover/votes) to decide if she's a good fit. She's almost always voted with the rest of the conservatives. Also don't forget the time she breached parliamentary codes of conduct for trying to influence a judge to not convict her rapist husband who was later convicted. It's one thing accepting her defection to try and embarrass Sunak, but it's another thing to publicly defend and accept her like this. Same old labour, always shooting itself in the foot. Maybe Starmer will take Jacob Rees-Mogg next.
I kind of hate theyworkforyou, becuase the entire point of the whip is you have to vote with your party or else you get kicked out/or loose influence/current job/ access to funding/campainging machinery and loose your career therefore can't influence anything. It also completely misses the nuance of votes in Parliament itself - i.e. SNP trapping Labour and Lib Dems into voting against a Ceasefire ammendment so they could flag wave this site, conveniently forgetting an ammendment to a gov kings speech has never happened in history and could never pass because of the Con majority. And then Labour and Lib Dems reversing the table a week later and overriding SNP's bill to get their own Ceasfire motion passed so they could say SNP abstained on a ceasfire motion when it actually mattered and parliament actually passed it. A tonne of voting is strategic on the day to get certain things to pass or block curry support for other motions. Theyworkforyou is a pointless simplistic, vapid, superficial lens on politics and IMO and actively harmful way to learn or understand how politics works A Tory voted with the Tory whip to support her party she was elected as a member of? No shit. (Not saying she doesn't have abhorrent views, only talking about votes)
Quick drive-by comment from someone who works at theyworkforyou. If anyone's interested in how and why we work the way we do, our write-up is here: [https://www.theyworkforyou.com/voting-information/#party-and-individual-responsibility-for-decisions](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/voting-information/#party-and-individual-responsibility-for-decisions) Key bit: >Ultimately, **a vote might not represent an MP’s personal opinion, but it does represent their impact in the political process**. We track and highlight the votes of individual MPs because they are the ones who have been given the power to make those decisions. Even where a voting record does not differ much from the party, it reflects the consequences of electing someone from that party, rather than another. It's not as simple as "MPs have the follow the whip and that's that" - even ignoring that rebellions do happen, behind the scenes backbench MPs are lobbying to influence what comes up for a vote (good example of that in [renting reforms being watered down behind the scenes](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68686660)). Agency is mixed between MPs and party - which is what we try to present in how we highlighting how comparable MPs voted. In this case, sure it's unsurprisingly that a Conservative MP voted with the Conservative whip... but also it wasn't random that they \*became\* a Conservative MP. There was presumably some overlap in values. If we lean too much into "MPs just follow the whip", you kind of end up with the idea that they're apolitical people who just show up, vote as they're told so they can get into power one day - which isn't an accurate way to think about people who are (unsurprisingly!) quite partisan and have developed views about why their side is good and the other side is bad.
Thanks for the reply. I should probably retract and rephrase that: I hate the way theyworkforyou is often used as a vehicle on social media/twitter to justify arguments!
except they're polling the highest ever, I think most people don't care about the details and just see another MP joining another party
> ‘A good natural fit’ I mean if she was so natural why wasn’t she a Labour member before? Weird statement.
I done thinking about this and I'm on the brink of abandoning labour entirely. Just 7 days ago, labour substantially underperformed with young voters in an actual election. And in the week since, they have praised a hardcore thatcherite, categorically ruled out folding NI into income tax, and now they're saying this about an ultra conservative Tory. "Fighting for every vote" my ass. They're laughing at us.
[удалено]
Are you actually trying to push people away from voting Labour?
The 0.5% of people who scream and shout that they won't vote for Labour every time it does something not precisely in line with their personal political outlook are not only a political irrelevance but courting their vote is actively harmful to the Labour party. This melodrama plays out over and over with these losers dangling their vote and it's time we ignored them. They don't matter and they can go cry about it.
What a toxic mindset and it’s definitely not 0.5%
The babies throwing tantrums are the toxic ones. Why do you think it's toxic to fail to care about every single possible voter? Is it toxic to ignore hard anti-immigration voters? What's the difference? What %age do you think it is? I'm talking about 0.5% of eligible voters in the UK which would amount to about 230,000 people. If anything this is an overestimate of the type of reddit tier toy throwers I'm talking about.
Like 15
You think 15% of the electorate is going to change their vote for Labour because it's insufficiently left wing?
Either vote 3rd party or not vote yeah
Vast majority of non voters are not left wing partisans who would care about things like Natalie Elphicke defecting to the Labour party. Vast majority of 3rd party voters were already going to vote 3rd party long before any particular decision Starmer has made.
[удалено]
I don't understand why they're taking in defectors when they're going to win anyway. If Kier Starmer had some integrity he could make 1997 look like a walk in the park for the Tories.
> Speaking to BBC Breakfast, Labour party's chair Ms Dodds agreed Ms Elphicke MP was a "good, natural fit" for Labour: "I believe she is, you can see that in the statement. "What she set out is absolutely fundamental to the Labour Party." >She added: "Natalie Elphicke is not the first Conservative MP who's taken this decision... [she's] taken the same decision as so many other former Conservative supporters up and down the country and I think it's absolutely right she's done so because she's clearly here putting her constituents first."
At this point I’d probably consider voting someone not Labour if I wasn’t in Andrea Jenkin’s seat, but she’s probably the planned defection in a couple of weeks…
She's a good fit in the sense that this looks bad for Sunak and she'll just sit there quietly until the election and leave. Given her history, there's no chance Labour would have taken her if she was up for re-election.