Maybe I woke up more cynical this morning, but...
Hoping to save her job, much?
this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
34 points (97.2% liked)
UK Politics
3066 readers
91 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Apparently not, as she's not standing again! Says something about how much Sunak's own MPs hate him that, rather than quietly quitting in a few months, they're knifing him on the way out by defecting.
Just a reminder that this woman committed a breach of the code of conduct for mps for trying to influence a trial that her husband was convicted of sexual assault in. That's on top of her being far right.
Apparently, she's the first Labour member of the ERG!
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/starmer-welcomes-right-wing-tory-labour
One Tory MP tweeted today that it was impossible to find a Conservative in the Commons who regarded themselves as further to the right and many were outraged at her hypocrisy.
Succeeding her husband Charlie in the Dover seat after he was convicted of sex offences, she attacked her husband’s victims and was suspended from the Commons because she had “improperly sought to influence judicial proceedings” in relation to the case.
Sounds like a lovely lady.
Her being allowed to join Labour says just as much about them as it does the Tories. Labour being seen as a safe haven for very far right Tories is not a good look.
She's not standing at the next election so they probably just thought it was a free hit on the Tories with basically no consequences in the medium to long term. Fair enough IMO.
Insane how people are defending this just because it harms the Tories. Do labour supporters have no principles at all?
Yes, the principle is 'Labour governments are good, do things that make Labour governments more likely.'
Think about it: the message Sunak is trying this week is: 'voting Labour will lead to chaos'. Yet another Tory MP defecting totally undermines that argument, because it paints the Conservatives, not Labour, as being out of control. That's a win for Labour.
Secondly, what has Labour's message been since Sunak took power? It's been: 'Sunak is weak'. This makes him look weak. Another win.
Sunak is convinced banging on about small boats will save him. A Tory MP quitting because he hasn't stopped the boats undermines one of the few lines he thinks works. That leaves him with nothing to say, making him again look both out of control and weak.
The downside for Labour is that Natalie Elphicke is clearly a nutter. But, that doesn't detract from any of the above. Most people have never heard of her. She's only going to be a Labour MP for a few months. So, overall it's a win for Labour.
What's the point in a LABOUR government if the party is willing to take the support of people who are proudly anti-worker? What good will it do to be a government of tories with red ties?
People have said exactly this about every Labour government, right down to the cliche about the ties. And yet, somehow, despite being Tories, all those LABOUR goverments somehow did a whole load of very Labour things! Amazing!
Maybe you're right and I hope you are, but I can't trust a 'democratic socialist' party that repeatedly turns it's back on promises to workers and allows hard right sexual assault apologists into the party
Yeah she's horrible. None of that has anything to do with policy decisions. Her being a sexual assault apologist won't make labour worse, except by the very weird "painted by association" belief that you seem to have. She's going to be an advisor not a policy maker, not a decision maker. She's going to have to work for Angela Raynor which will be hilarious.
She's not anti-worker she's pro-worker. She's a complete nutcase but she's not actually against British people like some of the Tories. They seem to think that anyone with less than six figures in their bank account should be ignored, she seems to care about British people. As long as you're not too different you're okay in her eyes.
She deserves a slightly less bad circle of hell.
My point is if you're going to criticize her, and there's a lot to criticize her about, at least criticize her actual beliefs rather than just making things up that aren't true.
It's perfect for Labour. They get to shower Rishi in shit until the general election and then quietly deselect her or move her aside for an actual candidate. Why wouldn't you?
My main worry is that she's just so mad that she might cause trouble for us even in the limited time she's going to be in the PLP. If I were in Starmer's shoes, I'd have had her sign some sort of contract promising not to speak to the press, at all, ever.
Well, if she does then Starmer can just kick her out again. He gets to have his cake and eat it that way; all of the embarrassment for Sunak of having an MP cross the floor, and the chance to performatively sack an MP that crosses a line.
Principles
Maybe its hard for the current labour party to understand that, but the party of the workers should not welcome hardcore right wingers no matter what the circumstances are
This is nothing but arrogant posturing. Who put you in charge of what the party of the workers should and shouldn't do?
Because it is a direct contradiction for the party of workers to welcome people with anti worker views?
What is an 'anti worker view'?
Accusing union activists who heckled her for showing up at a protest in support of P&O workers who her government failed to support of being 'hard-left militants' might be such an example
That's not an anti worker view, it's a description, either accurate or not, of a few shouty people at a protest.
Slurs against the supporters of the organisations who won workers all their rights isn't anti worker?
How about repeatedly voting on bills to reduce the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better treatment? Or does she have to shoot striking people on the picket line for you to accept she doesn't care about labour
There you go, some actual facts! Much easier to have a conversation when we talk about those instead of grandstanding, isn't it?
I don't agree with her votes on union issues, of course. But now she's joined the party promising to reverse those, she's implicitly endorsed reversing them. I assume she voted with the Whip. Maybe she's changed her mind on that stuff, maybe not; maybe she never believed it and just did what the Whips said. I guess we'll see if and how her voting record changes now she's joined Labour.
She's also campaigned for rent controls, which puts her to the left of current Labour policy. So, where does that leave us? She's anti-worker but pro-renter? She's left of some MPs, right of some others, so... just like every MP, then?
Principles
but the party of the workers should not welcome hardcore right wingers no matter what the circumstances are
I think you've got principles and policies mixed up. What you've described is a policy.
A principle for a party of workers might be: To champion workers rights for the betterment of society.
A policy for that principle could be: to not accept right wing nutters into your party because they are inherently anti worker.
But equally another policy could be: publicly humilate incumbent anti worker government in an election cycle by accepting a defector from their party knowing full well it will be temporary because they're standing down in the next election.
In a crucial election year one policy is infinitely better than the other.
This government don't need any more humiliation, this only humiliated Labour by having a former member of the government be allowed to sit among them
That's not how the news cycle sees it. If we are to believe the left wing rhetoric that the entire media is against Labour always and forever then the media proclaiming a win for Starmer and a humiliation for Sunak speaks volumes. And that's what most of the electorate will see as well.
There are two points here, and I'm going to sidestep whether her joining Labour is a good idea and focus on the other.
This government don't need any more humiliation
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this. We have seen repeatedly that people's memories are like goldfish. You have to keep it up for an extended period to stick, otherwise we will end up with the news cycle burying positive news for boosting the Tories.
All it takes is a bad angle of a bacon sandwich, and the press vultures will completely blow up any negative thing they can to derail Labour.
Not really a fan of her being in the Labour party. Think that was quite unnecessary -- Starmer is going to win the next election with or without this woman. And what specifically about the Labour Party's aims and values resonate with her? When you join the Labour party as a member, it's not like subscribing to Amazon Prime. It means you have to actually agree to the aims and values of the Labour Party as described in Clause IV, which begins "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party," and includes things like "promotes equality of opportunity" and "delivers people from ... prejudice". Does she agree with any of that? I'm very confused as to how a right wing ERG member could possibly want to join a democratic socialist party, let alone agree with its broader aims and values.
The merit of permitting her to cross the aisle and sit as a Labour MP is obvious, but so is the cost. I didn't like it when all those antisemites joined under Corbyn's leadership, and I don't like this now.
After the election she's just going to be an advisor not an MP. So I think that clause may be exempt in that case, I'm not really sure how it works. The Conservatives never seem to be that worried about having "lefty" scientists as advisors, after all they could always fire them if they said controversial things like maybe not all drugs should be class A.
I still don't think it's an appropriate appointment, simply because Labour just doesn't need her. They can implement housing reform without her. Presumably they expected to before she defected so I don't quite see what the point in allowing her in was. But I also don't think it's that big of a problem. I just think it's kind of stupid.
This is an utterly bizarre defection. Going to be a lot of consternation in her local CLP if they're expected to go doorknocking for a prominent Boris Johnson supporter!
EDIT: Per The Guardian, she's not standing again.
noted woman's safety campaigner, rosie duffield, is suddenly very quiet this morning.
insert defection/defecation comment here.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Former Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke has defected to the Labour Party, saying the Tories "have become a byword for incompetence and division".
In a statement released just as PMQs was starting, the MP for Dover said the key factors for her decision were housing and border security.
She accused Rishi Sunak of "broken promises" and abandoning key pledges.
It is the second defection to Labour for Rishi Sunak in less than two weeks, after Dan Poulter also quit the Tories.
The original article contains 80 words, the summary contains 80 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
The fact that Labour are letting people like this in is hilarious. A vote for Starmer's Labour is a vote for Conservative rule, albeit with a tint of red.
Well, given that she's not running again and there's no Labour approval process for just saying shit, you're just talking to talk. Good job not letting even a bad opportunity to soapbox go to waste!
Sir Keir welcomed her to the party, asking Mr Sunak "what is the point of this failed government staggering on" when "the Tory MP for Dover on the front line of small boats crisis says the prime minister cannot be trusted with our borders and joins Labour".
😮💨
So, your position is... what? That the government should stagger on? That they can be trusted to deal with immigration?
You're better than this,
You are hearing dog whistles where there are no dog whistles.
I think the point is that Elphicke's criticisms of Tory immigration policy are very different from what most Labour voters would like to see. I'd like to see a processing centre in Calais to make it easier to seek legal refugee status. She just wants to pull up the drawbridge. By saying this, Keir is condoning her messaging on immigration and I don't like that.
Starmer isn't condoning her message; it's the other way around. She's been a critic of the Conservative immigration policy, and now she's effectively saying 'Labour's immigration policy is better' - which it is. There's not the slightest hint that Labour's policy, which is much like what you've said you'd like to see, has changed.
How is he wrong? She will still be a party member, she will likely still hold the housing advisory position she's been given and be out on the streets as a face of labour campaigning. No right wingers should be welcome in labour, it says 'democratic socialist' on the membership card for a reason