Keir Starmer and the Labour Party

[weeklycommuter]

Elphicke is claiming that one of the reasons to abandon the Tory Party is for reasons related to immigration, and she appears to be on the "restrictions" side.

Labour are generally more "pro" when it comes to immigration so it's a slightly puzzling defection to me - unlike Poulter she didn't seem to be particularly on the liberal wing of the Tory party.

Perhaps she's more left-wing on other matters compared to the Tory norm?

Housing according to the following report.

The inside story of Tory MP's Natalie Elphicke's defection to Labour

Keir Starmer's allies believe the Dover MP can help win Tory voters but some on the left are uneasy.

www.bbc.co.uk

The truth about Ms Elphicke's position on the ideological spectrum is perhaps a little more nuanced.
She was staunchly pro-Brexit, and a member of the Eurosceptic European Research Group of Conservative MPs.
Yet while she has repeatedly castigated Labour over its approach to small boats, she has long argued that diplomacy with France will be more effective than the government's Rwanda scheme - putting her fairly close to Labour, which opposes the policy.
In 2022, she proposed that all private rents be frozen to help renters with the cost of living, and the next year was part of a cross-party project to build houses for homeless people.
In February she praised Nye Bevan, one of the heroes of the post-war Labour government, in the House of Commons.

 

[Gloster]

A random thought on today’s events. Are Labour, or at least someone in the party, thinking that they can use this on the doorstep if the Conservatives try a ‘Labour won’t stop the boats’ tactic in the election. Labour canvassers can retort that the MP for Dover, who is known to be strongly against the boats, has decided that Labour’s policy is better than the Conservatives.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Labour are seemingly being sucked into the void right of centre that the Tories left as they shunted to the extreme right...

Honestly its such an odd move that whilst the above is mostly tongue in cheek, there is part of me really starting to wonder about Labour's direction. I don't think this story has been fully played out yet.

That women's values are so non labour its a joke they've accepted her. Another example of Labour having no direction no policy and now no principles.

 

[3141]

I wonder if they are starting to overthink it.

....or if some posters on here are doing that.

As suggested in post #1883, most voters aren't going to be familiar with Natalie Elphicke's views on specific subjects. They'll just hear that another Conservative MP has shifted to Labour. It will add to the general impression that the Conservatives are on a steep downward trend.

 

[birchesgreen]

....or if some posters on here are doing that.

As suggested in post #1883, most voters aren't going to be familiar with Natalie Elphicke's views on specific subjects. They'll just hear that another Conservative MP has shifted to Labour. It will add to the general impression that the Conservatives are on a steep downward trend.

Yes plus she is going to be an ex-MP in a few months anyway.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes plus she is going to be an ex-MP in a few months anyway.

A few months is a long time in politics. Maybe she's moved in to stir things up, maybe she just wants to stick two fingers up at Sunak. But either way why would Labour accept someone so clearly deep right wing? And if she's stepping down, why not as suggested earlier just go independent? Maybe she doesn't really plan to step down?

It just doesn't make sense, at a time when Labour are coasting to victory they start to make moves like this. I mean they've already alienated some of their core support over their Gaza ceasefire policy, they could lose more if the media made more of the Team Trump talks, and now welcoming in hard right wingers?

I once joked that Starmer was far more comfortable in opposition, maybe he's trying to throw the election?

 

[nw1]

....or if some posters on here are doing that.

As suggested in post #1883, most voters aren't going to be familiar with Natalie Elphicke's views on specific subjects. They'll just hear that another Conservative MP has shifted to Labour. It will add to the general impression that the Conservatives are on a steep downward trend.

I wasn't sure before today, to be honest.

I knew she was the wife of the notorious Charlie, but didn't actually know where she stood within the Tory party; I looked it up after hearing the news. I actually didn't realise she was a strong Brexiter or ERG member, for example.

A few months is a long time in politics. Maybe she's moved in to stir things up, maybe she just wants to stick two fingers up at Sunak. But either way why would Labour accept someone so clearly deep right wing? And if she's stepping down, why not as suggested earlier just go independent? Maybe she doesn't really plan to step down?

It just doesn't make sense, at a time when Labour are coasting to victory they start to make moves like this. I mean they've already alienated some of their core support over their Gaza ceasefire policy, they could lose more if the media made more of the Team Trump talks, and now welcoming in hard right wingers?

I once joked that Starmer was far more comfortable in opposition, maybe he's trying to throw the election?

Given the Tories are so weak, I think it would take more than this to lose. I knew little about Natalie Elphicke before today, and I am someone with very strong (and very different to her own) views on matters such as immigration and the EU and have an above-average interest in politics. So if I knew little about her, Mr and Ms Average won't either - hence it'll have little impact.

For Starmer, it's a case of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't I suspect. If they turned her away they would doubtless be attacked for that, too.

Whatever happens, by Christmas she won't be the MP for Dover, whatever party she's representing.

Labour are seemingly being sucked into the void right of centre that the Tories left as they shunted to the extreme right...

Honestly its such an odd move that whilst the above is mostly tongue in cheek, there is part of me really starting to wonder about Labour's direction. I don't think this story has been fully played out yet.

What have Labour got to gain by heading rightwards though? They don't need to do so to win.

More puzzling is Elphicke's own decision, but as I said Starmer is damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't over this. He'd probably be castigated as a pro-migration communist who is willing to let the country be "overrun" with "hordes of migrants" [not my own views, typical Mail-speech] if he shut the door on her.

 

[Bantamzen]

Given the Tories are so weak, I think it would take more than this to lose. I knew little about Natalie Elphicke before today, and I am someone with very strong (and very different to her own) views on matters such as immigration and the EU and have an above-average interest in politics.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Labour will blow it. But things like these might just chip away at their core support, and make the election a tad closer than it could have been.

For Starmer, it's a case of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't I suspect. If they turned her away they would doubtless be attacked for that, too.

Not accepting her would have been an easy decision, who in Labour would have condemned Starmer for turning away a dyed in the wool right winger?

 

[Busaholic]

Remembering that the infamous Conservative MP Enoch Powell seemed on the point of defecting to Labour during the course of Ted Heath's Tory government of 1970-74, I decided to refresh my memory by consulting Wikipedia on the subject. In the end, of course, it never happened, though he did stand down from being the Tory candidate just before the February 1974 election, which Labour won by literally a handful of seats; he had urged people to vote Labour, and some thought his intervention made a contribution to that result. By autumn 1974 he'd tied himself to the Ulster Unionist cause and stood in Northern Ireland at the General Election then. Personally, I think he was purely using Labour for his own ends, and Labour narrowly escaped his tentacles.

 

[nw1]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think Labour will blow it. But things like these might just chip away at their core support, and make the election a tad closer than it could have been.

Dare I say it, a hung parliament with Labour largest party would be my own preferred outcome. But Labour themselves wouldn't want that, of course.

Not accepting her would have been an easy decision, who in Labour would have condemned Starmer for turning away a dyed in the wool right winger?

Nobody in Labour, but the press "might" have a field day and he's probably paranoid about that. Starmer has shown himself to be extremely sensitive towards doing anything too left-wing, too pro-Palestine, too pro-EU etc - though I will admit this is a weakness of his.

Sadly it appears the road to Downing Street is dirty but I remain convinced that he will be a considerably better leader than JohnsonTrussSunak, and the country will start to move in a better direction once he's in.

Remembering that the infamous Conservative MP Enoch Powell seemed on the point of defecting to Labour during the course of Ted Heath's Tory government of 1970-74, I decided to refresh my memory by consulting Wikipedia on the subject. In the end, of course, it never happened, though he did stand down from being the Tory candidate just before the February 1974 election, which Labour won by literally a handful of seats; he had urged people to vote Labour, and some thought his intervention made a contribution to that result. By autumn 1974 he'd tied himself to the Ulster Unionist cause and stood in Northern Ireland at the General Election then. Personally, I think he was purely using Labour for his own ends, and Labour narrowly escaped his tentacles.

Thankfully Elphicke is pretty soft - and pretty obscure - compared the truly vile excuse for a human being that was Powell.

 

[Bantamzen]

Dare I say it, a hung parliament with Labour largest party would be my own preferred outcome. But Labour themselves wouldn't want that, of course.

Maybe, I personally have doubts that any one party has the ability to take charge and start to solve some of this country's problems. Maybe it would take more than one having to work together?

Nobody in Labour, but the press "might" have a field day and he's probably paranoid about that. Starmer has shown himself to be extremely sensitive towards doing anything too left-wing, too pro-Palestine, too pro-EU etc - though I will admit this is a weakness of his.

I doubt it to be honest, the right wing press would probably prefer to see her join Reform than Labour, and the left would like to see her in the independent wilderness. Neither probably think Labour was the right play.

 

[Busaholic]

For Starmer, it's a case of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't I suspect. If they turned her away they would doubtless be attacked for that, too.

I honestly can't imagine one single person, other than the woman herself, who would have had that reaction if she'd been 'turned away.' I very much doubt she'd have made it public either in those circumstances. She'd have gone into well-deserved obscurity a few weeks or months before it was going to happen anyway.

If Labour are not careful, the next one (and I sincerely hope there isn't one) will be somebody who Ashcroft, Daily Mail etc, have inconvenient info on which comes out a day or three after the unveiling.

 

[nw1]

I honestly can't imagine one single person, other than the woman herself, who would have had that reaction if she'd been 'turned away.' I very much doubt she'd have made it public either in those circumstances. She'd have gone into well-deserved obscurity a few weeks or months before it was going to happen anyway.

Possibly yes. Incidentally what would your (and @Bantamzen's) opinion be on why Labour accepted her in that case?

It sounds like they probably didn't need to, in order to win over socially-conservative voters. Sunak and the Tories are so unpopular right now that they will lose by default.

 

[Bantamzen]

Possibly yes. Incidentally what would your (and @Bantamzen's) opinion be on why Labour accepted her in that case?

It sounds like they probably didn't need to, in order to win over socially-conservative voters. Sunak and the Tories are so unpopular right now that they will lose by default.

Honestly I have no idea why Labour accepted her. As you say they probably didn't need to, and it does risk making some supporters wonder in which direction they are heading. Its just a weird decision, especially given that she plans to stand down at the General Election.

 

[nw1]

Honestly I have no idea why Labour accepted her. As you say they probably didn't need to, and it does risk making some supporters wonder in which direction they are heading. Its just a weird decision, especially given that she plans to stand down at the General Election.

I do think they're overdoing the "nationalist" thing a bit (e.g. the election posters with a Union Jack incorporated in the design in Blackpool South). They don't need to do that now. Perhaps they did a year or two ago, when the country was further to the right - but not now. Concentrate on fixing the NHS and developing a fairer and more free society, and drop the nationalist stuff. Sunak is sinking; Labour can really just be themselves now.

 

[geoffk]

By the way, Monty 'Plonker' Panesar, who's never voted in an election in his life, has now withdrawn from standing as a candidate for the so-called Workers Party.

It sometimes ends badly for cricketers going into politics. Perhaps Monty has had a word with Imran Khan.

 

[jfollows]

The message Labour is currently sending to me is that if I vote Conservative I'll get Esther McVey and if I vote Labour I'll get Natalie Elphicke.

So why should I vote for either of them now? What's the point, whoever wins is the same.

That, plus any "radical" policy promises made by Labour have been scrapped.

For me, this obsession with not scaring the horses by cloning the Conservatives has gone too far - and, yes, I know the Conservatives have also stolen some of Labour's policies too.

I'll still probably vote Labour because I'm voting against the Conservatives primarily, but this sort of thing makes me question my decision seriously. I don't want to turn into someone who votes for Lord Buckethead instead but these games aren't going down well with me.

Ultimately the issue will be about winning the next election but one, by which time Labour needs some real achievements underpinned by some serious policy differences of its own.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Not to mention some credibility which for me it currently lacks

 

[NeilCr]

Honestly I have no idea why Labour accepted her. As you say they probably didn't need to, and it does risk making some supporters wonder in which direction they are heading. Its just a weird decision, especially given that she plans to stand down at the General Election.

I can completely see why they accepted her. Which is not the same as agreeing that they should have

Having the ex Tory MP for Dover and Deal (small boat central) on your team at election time heavily criticising the governments policy on immigration is not a bad card to hold

He’ll calculate that the vast majority of Labour activists will hold their noses and still vote for them at GE time. The fact that she is standing down helps that.

This won’t impact much on tactical voting

Those of us who post on this thread and other political ones have more interest than the average voter in the subject.

The majority likely won’t know who Natalie Elphicke is nor what her views are. To many it’ll just be another Tory defecting from a sinking ship which reinforces the message of a government in it’s dying days

 

[Falcon1200]

The message Labour is currently sending to me is that if....... I vote Labour I'll get Natalie Elphicke.

Not really, because Mrs Elphicke is standing down at the next election, and anyway, what real influence can she possibly have on Labour Party policy during her brief tenure?

 

[D6130]

Not really, because Mrs Elphicke is standing down at the next election, and anyway, what real influence can she possibly have on Labour Party policy during her brief tenure?

Possibly by Starmer giving her a job as a housing advisor?

 

[Falcon1200]

Possibly by Starmer giving her a job as a housing advisor?

Given the reaction within some parts of the Labour Party to Mrs Elphicke's acceptance, Keir Starmer may now be reconsidering his future plans for her!

 

[DarloRich]

I can completely see why they accepted her. Which is not the same as agreeing that they should have

Having the ex Tory MP for Dover and Deal (small boat central) on your team at election time heavily criticising the governments policy on immigration is not a bad card to hold

He’ll calculate that the vast majority of Labour activists will hold their noses and still vote for them at GE time. The fact that she is standing down helps that.

This won’t impact much on tactical voting

Those of us who post on this thread and other political ones have more interest than the average voter in the subject.

The majority likely won’t know who Natalie Elphicke is nor what her views are. To many it’ll just be another Tory defecting from a sinking ship which reinforces the message of a government in it’s dying days

Is the correct answer. The head loss over this has been incredible. It is tactics designed to help win the seat. Nothing more. She will be gone in no time.

I would also add to your list that it helps, once again, to make Sunak look weak and ineffective and undermines him even further.

 

[edwin_m]

Possibly by Starmer giving her a job as a housing advisor?

It appears her views on housing are approximately in line with Labour's. But clearly not so for other policy areas. What she reportedly said about Sunak deposing Johnson also looked pretty bad, considering that Johnson was deposed for multiple instances of dishonesty.

 

[nw1]

I do hope it's not a sign that both political parties now stand for the same socially-conservative message.

It seems that being anti-immigration (as one example of social conservatism) is part of what it is to be politically correct in the 2020s, but it doesn't mean we all go along with it.

I do note that both the left-wing Labour MPs (such as John McDonnell) and socially-liberal, pro-EU Labour MPs (such as Rosie Duffield) were somewhat sceptical. "Real Labour" - both the left and the socially liberal - seem to be against it.

Cynically of course, the votes of left-wingers and social liberals will be Labour's anyway, so they don't need to be attracted - but as I said, with Sunak's slide into oblivion, Labour no longer need to pander to the right quite as much. Taking a neutral line on matters such as immigration and the EU will suffice, being neither pro nor anti: no need to slip into the same half of the debate as the Tories.

Labour still seem to be acting as if there is a real danger of a Tory win. I think there's little danger of that now.

They'll doubtless win in any case, but unless they stand for something different to the Tories once in power, they'll lose - and possibly badly - in 2029.

 

[DarloRich]

Labour still seem to be acting as if there is a real danger of a Tory win. I think there's little danger of that now.

You cant think like that. Your mindset has to be one of chasing rather than leading the race.

Taking a neutral line on matters such as immigration and the EU will suffice, being neither pro nor anti: no need to slip into the same half of the debate as the Tories.

The problem is that in many of the areas Labour want to win back the issue of "illegals" and "small boats" IS a massive issue for people there. That is regardless of whether it actually IS as big an issue as it is perceived or whether is is confected. The Tory press and social media "influencers" are behind this viewpoint & people believe them.

 

[Purple Train]

I think that, if nothing else, this is an excellent advert for the horseshoe theory. Her stance on small boat crossings is rather at odds with where I would like Labour to be, but Euroscepticism is a trait of the beyond-centre left as well as the beyond-centre right - see, for instance, the Red Wall moving "across the top" - and on housing she is rather well aligned with Labour. Not that I think much of her personal qualities!

Another case in point - the late Frank Field. People are allowed to hold views that one might not want in a party you consider to represent yourself! I would be cautious of reading too much into this - she's standing down, she will likely hold no influence within Labour on matters on which she isn't aligned with them (i.e. anything except housing), and a defection to Labour is much more damaging to Sunak than simply quitting the Conservatives.

You cant think like that. Your mindset has to be one of chasing rather than leading the race.

Absolutely, and to a degree it worries me that people are becoming too confident - 1992 springs to mind.

 

[nw1]

Absolutely, and to a degree it worries me that people are becoming too confident - 1992 springs to mind.

Nothing like 1992 now though. Then, Major was seen as the moderate and reasonable face of Conservatism, replacing the now unpopular Thatcher. The Tories had moderates like Heseltine and Clarke in senior positions. They were often level or even ahead in the opinion polls in 1991.

 

[Purple Train]

Nothing like 1992 now though. Then, Major was seen as the moderate and reasonable face of Conservatism, replacing the now unpopular Thatcher. The Tories had moderates like Heseltine and Clarke in senior positions. They were often level or even ahead in the opinion polls in 1991.

That's very true - but I still have a lingering pessimism that Labour will end up emulating Devon Loch!

 

[nw1]

I do wonder, even with the above discussion, whether the Elphicke situation has done more harm than good overall. It will probably have won over few new converts - most strongly anti-immigration people will vote Tory or, if not, Reform in any case - but might have perhaps lost a few socially-liberal, left-wing votes.

Hopefully the latter will be mostly concentrated in the big cities, but you never know. If a couple of hundred people in a swing seat now say "a plague on all your houses" and refuse to vote Labour - maybe voting Green or Lib Dem instead - it could lead to the Tory retaining the seat.

I think that, if nothing else, this is an excellent advert for the horseshoe theory. Her stance on small boat crossings is rather at odds with where I would like Labour to be, but Euroscepticism is a trait of the beyond-centre left as well as the beyond-centre right - see, for instance, the Red Wall moving "across the top" - and on housing she is rather well aligned with Labour. Not that I think much of her personal qualities!

It's interesting; Galloway is another example who has some views that are left-wing but others which are stridently right-wing. While they may not share common views on everything, I wonder if Galloway and Elphicke have a good deal of common ground?