Forum menu
The reality is that the culture war shit will almost certainly intensify when we have a Labour government.
While your prediction of the future cannot be called 'the reality' you may have a point there as I had not thought about the tories continuing with it but it really all depends who is left in the tory party.
I do sense a lot of disappointed voters in a few years time though who will rightly be questioning why nothing has changed.
As I see it he hasnt done much at all, people are sick of the Tories, and want change.
If you think the opposition haven't been key in exposing the failures of a series of Tory leaders, well, that's because you're only looking at the outcome of the politics of the last five years, rather than the detail of how things have come to light and had light shone on them. Starmer and his team have done an amazing job of keeping the focus on Tory failings, despite many attempts by the media to create false equivalencies and drum up empty investigations into key Labour people. The speed at which negative stories have been shut down, by promises to resign or quick overly harsh sackings, has been a great contrast to Tory attempts to deflect and hold on.
it really all depends who is left in the tory party
Even if there's literally no-one left in the Tory party, if the next government is a Labour led one, then right wing agitators will absolutely double down on the culture wars to try and move the country back to them... or at least to carve out a space for attention and money making. The culture wars are here to stay. Sadly.
A large Labour majority will not be easy to manage, and the higher the number of MPs the bigger the disagreements will be.
Yup, definitely this. If there is a huge Labour majority I expect the arguments to start the Monday after the general election.
Tiny barely working majorities is what maintains parliamentary party discipline. The threat of losing a confidence vote and forcing an early election is a very powerful tool. No Labour MP wants to be responsible for that.
A donkey with a red badge could win the next election.
corbyn couldnt
All I hear is much of the same when they get in.
Im not going to pretend that Starmer has mad charisma or that he hasnt made some very daft mistakes but according to this
a national wealth fund, planning law reform, mandatory housing targets, reform of workers rights (some of them) A nationalised energy supplier, renationalising rail, devolved local government with their own growth plan, new towns ,
mostly its a lot of stuff we stopped doing, but theres some new ideas in there too.
Will it all happen- no,
will stuff that does happen be watered down- yes
will some of them fail utterly- yes
Will it be better than what we have now- most definitely
starmer is way more ruthless than I thought he would be , for better or worse hes willing to make compromises to get the top job, honestly that makes me uneasy, but its naive to think that he wont have to do this stuff to become PM
A donkey with a red badge could win the next election.
corbyn couldnt
You think there is no reason for the Tories to be less popular now than they were in 2019?
You think that the current huge Labour lead over the Tories is down to who is leader of the Labour Party?
You think that the current situation is unaffected by Tories hemorrhaging votes to Reform UK, a situation incomparable to 2019?
Although Corbyn screwed up in 2019 by agreeing to Starmer's insistence for a second referendum he did manage to secure a 40% share of the vote in the 2017 general election, which is not massively different to the level of support Labour are currently enjoying.
Obviously if your point is that if Corbyn was leader now the right-wing and "centrist" Labour MPs would be doing everything possible to sabotage his chances of winning the general election you could well be correct. But I don't think it was.
You think there is no reason for the Tories to be less popular now than they were in 2019?-
theyve made a bad situation worse, credit to Truss!!, even if Sunak did briefly turn things around
You think that the current huge Labour lead over the Tories is down to who is leader of the Labour Party?
hes steadied the ship (meanwhile HMS Tory has helpfully ricocheted from iceberg to iceberg)
You think that the current situation is unaffected by Tories hemorrhaging votes to Reform UK, a situation incomparable to 2019?
its certainly a huge help but as poling has showed at the Tories are able to get back 1/2 of reforms vote at best
Although Corbyn screwed up in 2019 by agreeing to Starmer’s insistence for a second referendum he did manage to secure a 40% share of the vote in the 2017 general election, which is not massively different to the level of support Labour are currently enjoying.
corbyns favourability was waaay down before he pledged a 2nd ref, he was pretty much as disliked as Sunak is now,
theres also been a fair bit of buyer remorse over brexit, tho arguably in 2019 many still believed that it could be made to work
Obviously if your point is that if Corbyn was leader now the right-wing and “centrist” Labour MPs would be doing everything possible to sabotage his chances of winning the general election you could well be correct. But I don’t think it was.
Starmer has been pretty efficient(ruthless) at neutering his critics in the party, as I said made me uneasy.
theres also been a fair bit of buyer remorse over brexit, tho arguably in 2019 many still believed that it could be made to work
But Starmer doesn't think so does he other wise he wouldn't take the position he does.
Starmer has been pretty efficient(ruthless) at neutering his critics in the party, as I said made me uneasy.
Yeah you will hear barely a squeak out of MPs such as John McDonnell who are terrified of losing the Labour whip. Can you imagine if that muppet Corbyn had been half that ruthless instead of his "kinda politics" bollox?
The question it poses is what sort of prime minister does someone who won't tolerate dissent make? It's not really an issue when in opposition but it's a whole new ball game when in government.
The other question it poses is how much can discipline been imposed when a general election is 5 years away and losing the Labour whip might not feel like such a big deal? I reckon Keir Starmer might find out fairly soon. Especially when discovers that being prime minister is a little harder than most people think. Although to be fair I don't doubt that he already knows that.
But Starmer doesn’t think so does he other wise he wouldn’t take the position he does.
for good reason , it was a turnoff in 2019 because people didn't want the division of another ref, itll be another electoral cycle before its discussed (major lols if Tories get there first)
The Labour Leader of Dover District Council, Kevin Mills, said what he has in common with Mrs Elphicke is "a limb on each corner of my body".
Made me chuckle - that's not an expression which I have heard before 😆
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68984774
Natalie Elphicke apologises for comments about ex-husband's victims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68984774
Excellent letter in the Guardian:
I’m waiting to see if Nadine Dorries announces that she is also defecting to Labour, and then see how long it takes Keir Starmer to realise that it’s all an elaborate practical joke.
Daniel Owen
Torrington, Devon
Starmer and his team have done an amazing job of keeping the focus on Tory failings
If only they did half as good a job at keeping the focus on what they will do better. It's exactly the same up here, can talk down the incumbent all day long but can't give one solid example of how they will make things better other than vague promises.
As for that "plan" I'm sorry, I can't take that remotely seriously after reading this utter shite:
In relation to the devolved governments of
Scotland and Wales, the Tories have chosen
cheap political arguments over respect and
partnership-building. They have ridden roughshod
over devolution arrangements and conventions,
weakened relations and harmed opportunities to
cooperate on the common challenges we face.
That's the same Labour Party that would deliberately oppose SNP motions that aligned with Labour policy out of pure political spite. See nationalised rail operators. At risk of going full TJ that, that's gaslighting.
The question it poses is what sort of prime minister does someone who won’t tolerate dissent make? It’s not really an issue when in opposition but it’s a whole new ball game when in government.
That's a very good question. If he actually had any sort of consistency with policy then you could say what he's likely to push. But he doesnt. He's someone consolidating power with no aims or goals for once he has it. Well, that's not strictly true, by all indications he's going to go back to the policies of the 2015 Cameron government. Remember how awesome that was?
Anyone voting for this bunch of shysters will get exactly the government they deserve.
“a national wealth fund, planning law reform, mandatory housing targets, reform of workers rights (some of them) A nationalised energy supplier, renationalising rail, devolved local government with their own growth plan, new towns ,”
No idea what a National Wealth fund is, so that meassage hasnt got out to the masses.
Planning Law Reform, definitely needed, after suffering at the hands of our Council.
Housing targets - easy to make targets, less easy to actually get them built.
Workers rights, I thought we were pretty well off in that area anyway?
Nationalised energy supplier. Total rubbish. It seems they want to seen to be doing something, and kidding people that it’ll be National Grid/British Gas again. It wont, they are in fantasy land. The only thing they’ll do is set up a supply Company, and hope people switch to it, but the power/gas will still come from privatised Companies.
Nationalised rail. It’s already nationalised in all but name. Another falsehood, but the general public dont delve into the details.
Devolved local Government, yes, a good thing, but they’ll still have the same spending pot, so not a lot will change, but they’ll now have a few more elected mayors.
New Towns. Unlikely. Big plans take a long time. HS2 could be built in 2 years, but the planning process/procurement takes 7+ years, planning a town will take longer, it wont happen.
There’s little there to make people vote for them, as I said earlier, the Tories are so bad that they cannot be voted in again, it isnt because people think Labour will be a great change, they just think Labour will do better, and Labour are living up to that promise in pretty much saying ‘business as usual with a few tweaks when we’re in’.
To me, Kier seems to be doing the right thing, although I'm as confused as the rest about the recent defection.
The job of politicians is to represent the views of the electorate, and Corbyn proved twice, with open goal elections, that the country doesn't want a 'progressive' socialist revolution. The consensus right now is likely a slightly left of centre direction in terms of policy. If Kier and Labour move to the left once elected the Conservatives will be back in at the next cycle.
Both the Tories and Labour are split the same on Brexit.
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-09/labour-talking-to-more-tory-mps-about-defecting-streeting-claims
This one of the most astonishing things that I have read in a long time.
Wes Streeting justifies welcoming Natalie Elphicke into the Labour Party with open arms because of her concerns about immigration. Streeting: "Natalie Elphicke who is with her community seeing the consequences of what happens when immigration goes poorly managed".
The article then goes on to point out that "Labour MPs have criticised the decision to admit Ms Elphicke to the party, citing her hardline views on immigration".
So her concerns about immigration is what Wes Streeting likes about Natalie Elphicke, and it is her hardline views on immigration that Labour MPs don't like about Natalie Elphicke
It would be amusing if this contradictory nonsense was the preserve of the Tories/Reform UK, not so funny coming from a Labour government waiting in the side-wings.
The job of politicians is to represent the views of the electorate, and Corbyn proved twice, with open goal elections, that the country doesn’t want a ‘progressive’ socialist revolution.
Sounds like you fell for the anti BS about Corbyn if you think he was offering a progressive socialist revolution. Most of the policies of that time were want people actually do want and would still want if Starmer offered them in what really is an open goal election now more than the two Corbyn elections.
It is pretty clear that nobody is going to be voting Labour because of Starmers great policies is it.
The only thing they’ll do is set up a supply Company, and hope people switch to it, but the power/gas will still come from privatised Companies.
It's the other way around. The publicly owned company will be generating electricity, from renewable sources only. None of us will buy from it directly... it'll be a part of the energy supply mix, aimed at increasing the proportion of our energy coming from renewables at a faster rate (alongside a load of other measures aimed at the private companies also switching on renewables faster). They'll be no publicly owed generation based on fossil fuels, all the gas supply remains private, and the billing companies will all stay private (for now... another energy price crunch like we've had recently, and I can see that having to change).
Corbyn proved twice, with open goal elections, that the country doesn’t want a ‘progressive’ socialist revolution.
And Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband proved twice that after 13 years of "centrist" government the country didn't want any more.
So her concerns about immigration is what Wes Streeting likes about Natalie Elphicke, and it is her hardline views on immigration that Labour MPs don’t like about Natalie Elphicke
I suppose this is the labour leaderships attempt to disarm the one issue on which they're seen as weak by the electorate. I can see why it's tempting, given the tabloid-warped narrative on immigration it's the goden ticket issue which will guarantee lots of votes for the party who can present themselves as the ones to sort it out. And it will work as long as left wing labour voters continue voting labour by default no matter what their policies are or what they say.
It’s the other way around.
Who cares? Labour are now a party of proud racists and bigots. They can **** off.
Workers rights, I thought we were pretty well off in that area anyway?
Not as well off as we were pre-2010.
Remember when employers couldn't arbitrarily sack you for 2 years after hiring you?
When zero hours contracts were only used by those actually requiring them?
The apologists will be along to tell us it takes many terms to undo the damage and you have to start small. Seemingly this isn't true if you're breaking things as you can just wade in with a sledge hammer and do things within a single term. But rolling that back? Nope, too hard.
And Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband proved twice that after 13 years of “centrist” government the country didn’t want any more.
So the country didn't want want a ‘progressive’ socialist revolution and got bored with centrist politics, does that just leave us with fruit loop right wing conservatism for the foreseeable. What's the alternative, a 'progressive' socialist softly softly, can't see that gaining much traction with anyone.
A donkey with a red badge could win the next election.
Foot and Kinnock failed against Thatcher, Corbyn failed against Cameron. The Labour Party is absolutely capable of crashing this plane into the ground.
Foot and Kinnock failed against Thatcher, Corbyn failed against Cameron. The Labour Party is absolutely capable of crashing this plane into the ground.
Yup, it's theirs to lose and by God if there's something they're good at it's snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Though this is a good opportunity to remind everyone that other parties exist that aren't offering more of the same with or without a wishful wink and a nudge.
People will only get what they fight for. Hoping for some sort of munificence from the parliamentary parties is ahistorical and naive in the extreme. When people were begging for a rent or mortgage break during the lockdown the LP was very quick to line up with the landlords and banks, don't expect any change there.
So the country didn’t want want a ‘progressive’ socialist revolution and got bored with centrist politics, does that just leave us with fruit loop right wing conservatism for the foreseeable.
If no one is making an argument against right wing dogma, then that is the only orthodoxy that people know.
Even the Starmer supporters club on here have little problems with the Corbyn era labour policies, it seams to be just him they hate . So why then reject those policies and turn towards neoliberal tory policies? Why not keep making the argument for policies that will actually help the majority of people? If labour aren't making those arguments how are people meant to choose a path that no one is offering to them?
The hatred of Corbyn might be something to do with his lifelong anti-racist stance and support for the Palestinians. His policies in European terms were very much middle-of-the-road. His opponents, including a majority of the shadow cabinet, preferred to have a Tory government that supported a foreign apartheid regime.
People's views change and I'm sure many in the 'red wall' now realise they'd been had.
Some of you might find a piece about actual policy interesting
Ignore me....going mad
@Twodogs - nah.
That piece is clearly written by centralist scum.
The mistake we all made was to not give Corbyn a third chance. Third time lucky and all that.
Ps - I don't hate Corbyn - quite the opposite actually and I voted for him twice (unlike the idealogical purists who now can't possibly bring themselves to vote for labour...). I just don't think he is capable of winning a GE. This is the fundamental point for me. And until labour actually get into power we can't change **** all.
And until labour actually get into power we can’t change **** all.
And when they get into power they will change **** all. It is not about being an ideological purist, it is expecting the Labour party to actually be a Labour party.
Foot and Kinnock failed against Thatcher, Corbyn failed against Cameron. The Labour Party is absolutely capable of crashing this plane into the ground.
That is a very selective history lesson. Brown and Miliband also both failed against Cameroon.
Despite his failure to win a general election Corbyn managed to get Labour a larger share of the vote than both Brown and Miliband did, and he did that twice.
How he managed it I'm not entirely sure as he had to do it fighting both the Tories and the Parliamentary Labour Party simultaneously.
As a woke leftie with a love for organic food and bicycles, and who tried to stop Brexit with his commitment to a second referendum, it is surprising that Corbyn isn't more popular on STW.
But I guess that perhaps like the Guardian newspaper STW likes to talk the talk but not necessarily walk the walk.
The other political thread has been quite a revelation in a similar vein. After literally years of reading how much ERG Tories are despised on STW it turns out that quite a few believe that they should be welcomed into the Labour Party.
As a woke leftie with a love for organic food and bicycles, and who tried to stop Brexit with his commitment to a second referendum, it is surprising that Corbyn isn’t more popular on STW
🤣
Poly Tonybee and Jonathan Freedland told them not to vote Corbyn and that the Tories would be better.
And when they get into power they will change **** all. It is not about being an ideological purist, it is expecting the Labour party to actually be a Labour party.
Exactly. Anything else is wishful thinking.
That is a very selective history lesson. Brown and Miliband also both failed against Cameroon.
I don't think it is tbh, Brown was the incumbent so there's that, Miliband wasn't really offering much different and the SNP destroyed them in Scotland, something they still haven't recovered from (and won't until they grow up and stop playing stupid games).
It is not about being an ideological purist, it is expecting the Labour party to actually be a Labour party.
Well exactly.
Nothing ever stopped the Tories from being ideological and successful did it?
Labour - lazy ripped off Neoliberal arguments supported by nothing.
It's worse than that - it's recycled failed Tory policy.
Change the narrative FFS.
How hard is it to point out the failures of market economics, natural monopolies, privatisation - as well as poor investment in the state. The body of evidence and doorstep conversation is one big gaping opportunity.
(PS all politics is ideological.)
the idealogical purists who now can’t possibly bring themselves to vote for labour…
Starmer is not the pragmatic one really his he? If he was he'd be offering pragmatic solutions and stop lying about things.
Ian Dunt has a track record of sweary shouty failed observations.
A liberal menace that did all he could to help the pile on for Corbyn.
Piss poor judge of character.
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1239968681360121856?t=_1I4wqAxYo_uNxwTlReVRA&s=19
Thinks Kate Andrews is one of the good ones too.
How hard is it to point out the failures of market economics, natural monopolies, privatisation – as well as poor investment in the state. The body of evidence and doorstep conversation is one big gaping opportunity.
I thought, just for one second, that you were going to manage not mention MMT 🙄
Ian Dunt has a track record of sweary shouty failed observations
Maybe so, but at least he bothers to read and analyse what Starmer says, even if you disagree with his conclusions. 90% of posters on this and the other thread just keep banging on about how awful Starmer is, and are so naive they'd rather have another 5 years of the Tories than recognise that if you don't get elected, you can't do anything. Pragmatism seems to be a mortal sin to some.
I thought, just for one second, that you were going to manage not mention MMT 🙄
He didn't. I read the quote of his which you copied and pasted and cannot see any mention of MMT.
Which bit of the quote that you copied and pasted do you disagree with?
The hatred of Corbyn might be something to do with his lifelong anti-racist stance and support for the Palestinians.
It's not much of anti-racist stance if it includes obliviousness to bigotry against Jews (the anti-Semitic book, the anti-Semitic mural, his loyalty to Chris Williamson). His worldview is profoundly uncurious - it's a binary arrangement where everyone in his camp on the main issue gets a pass on the other topics eg Hizbollah and Israelis, SF-IRA on NI. It is mind-blowing that Corbynites are not only willing to forgive Corbyn for taking money from Iranian state TV for presenting a call in show, but actually deny there was ever anything wrong with working for one of the most reactionary governments in the world. And all of this while losing two elections and still smugly saying he won the argument - as if this were all some study group.
But Corbyn is in the dustbin of history now.
Yeah let's talk about Corbyn! At least it deflects any criticism of Starmer. And Starmer annoyingly keeps cropping up on this thread!
deny there was ever anything wrong with working for one of the most reactionary governments in the world.
I take it that you weren't talking about Labour centrists?
Tony Blair Institute continued taking money from Saudi Arabia after Khashoggi murder:
Ian Dunt has a track record of sweary shouty failed observations.
He reminds me of a self assured mouthy gobshite in the pub that won’t shut up until someone kicks him in the nuts and tells him to do one.
This thread is hilariously pointless. It's supposed to be about Starmer, but he did a major speech today about what a future Labour government's policy would be on small boats/asylum seekers....but there's not a single critique of it.
Everyone's too busy arguing about previous Labour leaders and trying to out do each other with pedantry. Utterly stupid.
90% of posters on this and the other thread just keep banging on about how awful Starmer is, and are so naive they’d rather have another 5 years of the Tories than recognise that if you don’t get elected, you can’t do anything.
Why vote for the same? We'd rather not have tory policies, that's our entire point!
This thread is hilariously pointless. It’s supposed to be about Starmer, but he did a major speech today about what a future Labour government’s policy would be on small boats/asylum seekers….but there’s not a single critique of it.
You're an odd one, see things where they aren't and can't see things where they are. The boats were discussed earlier, I didn't feel the need to comment as it underlines the "more of the same" point perfectly.
.The boats were discussed earlier, I didn’t feel the need to comment as it underlines the “more of the same” point perfectly.
Apologies if I've missed it, but i can't see any discussion of Starmer's speech today...which is absolutely not "more of the same"
Yep, his speech has hardly blipped on social media. Is Assaf Kaplan doing his job?
This thread is hilariously pointless. It’s supposed to be about Starmer, but he did a major speech today about what a future Labour government’s policy would be on small boats/asylum seekers….but there’s not a single critique of it.
You'll get used to it, folk who would never vote for Starmer ever, complaining about everything he says or does, even though he, and Labour, haven't even started their election campaign yet, or really provided details of their policies, but then again, it'll just be 'more of the same', as we have a lot of clairvoyants on here 😂
For the past few months I've been wondering why he hasn't just clearly stated that the whole Rwanda thing would be dismantled the moment Labour came into power. It's a blessing that he's now managed to come to the same conclusion. All he has to do now is repeat the exercise with a whole boatload of other Tory policies and legislation.
Hasn't he come to the conclusion, reluctantly, that they mostly have to be kept?
He would like to do things differently but apparently a lack of money is the problem.
I had a Labour leaflet in my window until I realised it didn't even mention Labour. I didn't want any neighbours to misinterpret a Union flag. We always vote Labour (whilst holding our noses).
For the past few months I’ve been wondering why he hasn’t just clearly stated that the whole Rwanda thing would be dismantled the moment Labour came into power.
Never interrupt your enemy when they're making a mistake.
complaining about everything he says or does, even though
Everything ? Where are the complaints about his pledge to stop the Rwanda flights?
And I am not sure why the next Labour government not pursuing the Tory Rwanda policy should be much of a talking point - what is there to talk about? Does anyone think it is a bad idea not to pursue the pointless and ridiculously expensive policy?
Could Labour even consider not scrapping a multi million pounds policy which no sensible person believes will achieve its stated aims?
Never interrupt your enemy when they’re making a mistake.
And Napoleon dealt so well with his enemies.
Everyone’s too busy arguing about previous Labour leaders and trying to out do each other with pedantry
Mostly down to one of Starmers cult members desperately trying to divert attention away from Starmer had accepted an ERG extremist who even the tories thought was borderline into the party.
Regarding his speech it was a bit of a damp squib. Not really worth the reputational damage to have the ERG extremist introduce it in my opinion.
Overall it was vague. I cant say I am a fan of his proposal of copying and pasting some of the counter terrorism laws for anti people smuggling. Those are laws which really need review not extending to other area.
I give up. One or two of you really need to take your heads out of your own fundaments and actually read stuff or listen to stuff.
I read stuff and listen to stuff but we must be hearing different things. What things has Starmer said so far that are really great for you? (You obviously can't count his half decent pledges from a few years back!)
As others has said the Rwanda policy should be a 100% given that Labour would immediately scrap it, just like they should state they would immediately scrap the recent hit the sick and disabled crap the tories were touting.
The problem is that he doesn't show any integrity in case he loses some points in the polls. Yes, politics is difficult as tories would just say he has no plan because he doesn't like their plan but as a potential PM he should be up to handling that while retaining integrity, i.e. my 'plan' for immigration would be to get the asylum process actually working to a point where there is pretty much no backlog with all claims dealt with in a month so no need for mass retention. The money to implement would come from the much lower current costs of holding people for 18 months. May be very difficult to implement but that is my plan as a response to knocking the Rwanda plan.
And so as we are about enter a new week the media coverage still keeps rumbling on, and not in a very positive way. From today's Guardian:
Labour MPs are wondering if they will have to clap Elphicke at the next meeting of the parliamentary party, as is usually the case with new arrivals. “Slow-clapped is more probable,” said one MP.
Nicely summed up here:
The Tories were milking Labour’s discomfort. One former cabinet minister said: “Natalie has earned her place in history by being the only defector ever to cause more embarrassment to the party she defected to than to the one she left.”
Rishi Sunak must be breathing sighs of relief that she didn't do serious damage to the Tories by joining Reform UK.
Why didn't she join Reform, would look like a much better fit than Labour - guess she wanted the attention where who low morals would be notable rather than just being pretty average in Reform.
Maybe sublime skullduggery at work here, she wanted to damage both parties. And did.
I suspect that although she is being touted as an "unpaid" housing advisor to Starmer personal financial reward was likely the driving factor.
All the evidence is that after the general election she will derive her income from that sector, having easy access to non-hostile government ministers will possibly prove rather useful. Before she became an MP she was doing work for the government, she is obviously aware that the next government will be a Labour government.
Funny how Robert Buckland suddenly remembers her trying to corrupt the judicial process four years ago. Must have been some kind of flashback induced by the trauma of seeing her cross the floor.
The spectacle of Labour having to issue a denial on behalf of the far-right MP for Dover for trying to influence a sex offences trial involving the previous Conservative MP for Dover is quite entertaining though.
I suspect it's now gone a little beyond the one-day PR victory SKS was envisaging. Perhaps if his next defector could have a little less dirty laundry to bring across, that would be nice.
As Grace Blakeley said on QT - literally letting the Tories in.
Funny how Robert Buckland suddenly remembers her trying to corrupt the judicial process four years ago.
Perhaps the sight of a former Dictator of Public Prosecutions welcoming and defending a far-right politician who tried to nobble a judge jolted his memory?
What's also funny is that Sir Keir Starmer appears to have such a short memory that he didn't seem to have remembered why Natalie Elphicke was suspended from the House of Commons.
Hey James O'Brien called it a genius move - looks totally regressive to me.
More than half the guardian comments section is in tatters.
Elphicke is just trying to do as much damage as possible to the Tories and Labour in her spiteful farewell to parliament.
Starmer should have told her to do one and at least hold onto a scrap of moral high ground. Elphicke will not be tomorrow's chip paper because she's not the type to go quietly. She will continue to do damage (more to Starmer than Sunak) for as long as she sits as a MP.
This is a huge error by Starmer.
Agree, struggling to see any upside to Labour here and waiting on the 'new information has come to light' suspension and back track
All the evidence is that after the general election she will derive her income from that sector, having easy access to non-hostile government ministers will possibly prove rather useful. Before she became an MP she was doing work for the government, she is obviously aware that the next government will be a Labour government.
Most plausible explanation by far.
She would have done Sunak more damage by defecting to Reform UK.
In the last year support for Labour has more or less remained stable but the Labour lead has slowly increased because the Tories have hemorrhaged votes to Reform UK. Support for Reform UK has more than double in the last year.
Labour has taken about as many votes from the Tories as is reasonably possible, they can't realistically take much more. Reform UK on the other hand can.
With Elphicke defecting to Labour Sunak was able to do what everyone else has done - shrug his shoulders and dismiss as bizarre and illogical because she has nothing in common with Labour.
A defection to Reform UK would have been a huge problem for Sunak because it is seen by many as the natural home for disaffected right-wing Tories, Elphicke's defection would have simply fed that narrative and encouraged others to follow suit.
The problem for Elphicke is that Reform UK won't be forming the next government, Labour will be.
When you add up all the different sections of society he's pissed off you do wonder what he imagines his constituency to be.
This feels pretty signifcant
not just because it shows that elphicke has definitely crossed the floor, but also that Sunak is losing control of parliament
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1790114501762674694
This feels pretty signifcant
Other tories also voted for it without crossing the floor and damaging labours reputation. So not really significant at all. But I am sure some still want to believe welcoming such a vile politician into labour is a sign of SKS's tactical genius.
Yup, I don't think there is anything significant about the new far-right Labour MP voting with the majority in what was a free vote.
Especially as it comes days after she was forced to publicly apologise for attempting to justify the sex crimes of a former MP.
One time Tory Party Leader Theresa May also managed to vote for the Labour/LibDem amendment. She remains a Conservative MP.
That is was a free vote not whipped surely makes it more significant & the 8 Tory MPs that voted against the government on this are all considered to the left* of elphicke/ wets by the frothing hard right that are driving the Tories currently!
It doesnt stop her being a horrible woman, but shows she now has to vote very differently and its certainly helping destabilise the tories even more, Ill bet she's off the CCHQ xmas card list
https://twitter.com/MittensOff/status/1790411304588435519
*Im aware that everyone is to the left of her!
Carving that on a rock's not going to cut it, I want to see it tattooed on his face, that might stop him uturning on it all
“First Steps ….. Right, Left, Right, Left, Right, Left “
Remember David Blunkett as Home Secretary? Gengis Khan would have thought some of Davids policies were going a bit too far.
The question SKS is going to struggle with soon (that's already been put in a few places) is How Come Natalie Elphicke is an acceptable member of the Labour party, but Diane Abbot has had the whip withdrawn for over a year now?
They will soon start to run the risk of undermining some core support, if they lurch too far rightwards and keep refusing to make any space for those to the left with a long history in the party...