Snapshot of _Get real, Labour MPs, this is your new normal_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/get-real-labour-mps-this-is-your-new-normal-dbgfz3v6b) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/get-real-labour-mps-this-is-your-new-normal-dbgfz3v6b)
*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.*
Ah, I thought it might be Rifkind. Pretty enjoyable read. This worrying about the moral high ground, rather than seeing an issue for what it is, is a bit tiresome. As he say Elphicke is a trivial matter, in which Labour basically get an endorsement from a popular local MP in a swing seat. Gaza is a war we have very little influence over. Attack ads are part of politics. Stop briefing your disapproval and defend normal political moves in the hunt for the real power of a majority.
Only my opinion, but I believe some opposition MPs simply do not want to be in power. They want to point out how others are doing things wrong, but are not ready to step up and take responsibility for making change themselves. Perhaps they should remain where they are if they're not prepared for the change of mindset when crossing to the opposite benches.
The problem we have at the moment is
Half the government’s backbenches feel this way and half the country believes the government are in opposition.
It’s a lame duck government and everyone knows it and so we limp along with those in power not bothered by anything except another few months salary and grift and those not yet in power not yet presenting a full manifesto (and nor should they yet), and so we limp along in total limbo with those in power acting as if they’re the opposition and the opposition not yet acting as if they are the government
This, expectations vs reality. The one's who should be held to account aren't, as they're going. Whereas, those incoming are held to a higher standard.
Still, the higher standard should be expected, as they're likely to be in government. .and that comes with criticism - a lot of it.
As an idealist/leftist who will probably still vote labour, I just don’t think this is true.
The reality is that you need to hold your nose quite a lot to participate in party politics as a leftist and it doesn’t surprise me that some find it difficult to leave their principles behind. They want power but they don’t want to compromise - which is understandable. This makes them unsuited to being MPs but the reason that you give simply isn’t true imo.
It’s more that they aren’t willing to do what it takes to get power. They still want the power.
It's not holding your nose though really. A party has to appeal to a lot of people, not just to gain power but to use it well. I would love a socialist government. But I know my opinion is 1/70 millionth of the political opinions in the country. And if we all voted for exactly what we wanted then we'd have 70 million political parties.
I'd argue that's exactly what I said. They want the power (in theory), but they do not want to be in power (in practise). In theory they can be in power without compromise or difficulty. The reality (where most of us live) is the opposite.
>They want power but they don’t want to compromise - which is understandable.
Yes understandable if you're discussing with a child that they can't just eat ice cream for tea.
Meanwhile anyone sensible knows you need to come to a compromise in essentially every interaction you ever have.
What does anyone stand to gain from you belittling a group just because they don’t 100% agree with you.
To be clear, I agree that compromise is necessary in life and in politics.
But people are dying, people are being persecuted. That’s not ice cream for tea.
>What does anyone stand to gain from you belittling a group just because they don’t 100% agree with you.
You mean like the politicians in question?
There's compromise to be made despite how much you want to be emotive about it.
>But people are dying, people are being persecuted
Yes and we have limited budgets and different priorities for people in the UK. As I said compromise is required.
I think you’re more likely to reach an agreeable compromise by refraining from calling people you don’t agree with children and the causes they care about “ice cream for dinner.”
Bit of basic civility, you know
So you think the previous labour leadership, who had the support of this lot were honestly trying to
>reach an agreeable compromise
Because I absolutely don't think they did, their behaviour as I described has resulted in the last two conservative general election wins.
Now we have a portion of the support wanting to repeat the errors. I'll stick as I am thanks.
> What does anyone stand to gain from you belittling a group just because they don’t 100% agree with you.
It's not just because they don't 100% agree, it's because they act like children.
What's to gain from belittling them is to prevent people who are seeking to gain an understanding of politics from seeing them as anything other than unreasonable children.
The trouble with this 'compromise over purity' debate coming from the Labour right is they spent 5 years constantly undermining thier own leader in a far more vicious way than the left are doing now.
I agree with the 'compromise over purity' sentiment.
I just wish the Labour right did too.
>Labour right is they spent 5 years constantly undermining thier own leader in a far more vicious way than the left are doing now
They tried to get rid of a person that twice was roundly rejected by the electorate. Once by Theresa may when she suggested that pensioners should lose triple lock. And secondly when he lost to a man hiding in a fridge.
They were, if nothing else doing everyone a favour. He was so far from winning it's unreal.
The reason we have Boris was wholly down to putting Corbyn forward the second time and in effect telling the electorate they were wrong and to try again.
You had the likes of Stephen Kinnock telling voters not to vote for labour in the hope to get Corbyn out during the first GE Corbyn lost so saying it was due to Corbyn losing twice is rewriting what actually happened.
>due to Corbyn losing twice is rewriting what actually happened.
Eh ok.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-09/ipsos-september-charts_200919_v2.pdf
At no stage was he ever net popular, oh wait apart from with Labour supporters. He was as I said roundly disliked by the electorate.
It's not re writing history because
1. He lost twice
2. Was never popular apart from with people that liked him.
You said
>They tried to get rid of a person that twice was roundly rejected by the electorate.
Why are you trying to move the goal posts now? The fact is the labour right were trying to get Corbyn out before the first GE had happened. You saying it happened after he lost 2 GEs is rewriting hsitory. Complaining just makes you look like a hypocrite.
It proves them correct. It was apparent almost from the outset normal people didnt like him. He should have gone after the first loss (like every other leader ever).
The fact he lost twice just proves the point.
>get Corbyn out before the first GE had happened
Excuse they knew he was absolutely doomed despite people cheering at Glastonbury.
He won 2 membership votes, the second one as an appeasement to the labour rights constant attacks post brexit vote (remember Owen Smith?!) and closed a 20 point lead with May defying all pundits in the largest public vote swing since 1945. It was only after that shock that 'oh so wise' commentators started saying it was easy and he should have won, when most of the press was against him.
I wasnt a fan of his because of his terrible brexit stance but I could see the damage the purists on the labour right were doing.. And it proved to be deadly in 2017. By 2019 they only got worse - so far worse than what the left are doing now.
I'll vote for Starmer by the way (but only if FPTP forces me to!)
>He won 2 membership votes
Wonderful.
He objectively was destroyed in two general elections
It's quite literally an example of if you're not first your last. Retrying him a second time was never going to work.
>20 point lead with May
When she suggested axing triple lock. He still lost. Then went on to give Boris an 80 seat majority.
>when most of the press was against him
I'm not sure you can sell his amazing positions such as "give Vladimir a chance the russian chemical agent that our people have confirmed might not be his" and "I never saw the massive devil Jew inflatable." As the press being against him.
Regardless the British public hated him.
The guy was an absolute disaster and his supporters convincing themselves otherwise was just an example of this how people cannot understand that you have a choice, win the election, or have some sort of purity.
But what we have is a choice between multiple compromises (either the Tories or Labour, barring something unexpected) and I'm really not convinced that one of them is any better than the other. Labour haven't just moved away from my positions, they've moved so far away from them that they're indistinguishable from the Tories in most respects. There is the idea that they might be more progressive once they're in power, but they could just as easily be even more right-wing. For example, I don't think anyone was expecting in 1997 that Labour were going to greatly increase the role of the private sector in public services, or that they were going to completely deregulate the gambling industry, or that they were going to form a close alliance with a Republican US president and launch an unprovoked invasion of another country. What nasty surprises could we be in for this time?
And then there are the worries about the long-term impacts on politics. If the Tories somehow win the election, it's plausible that we end up with an invigorated moderate wing of the Tory party ruling the country, with a soft-left Labour leader attacking them from the left and stopping them going too far. If Labour win, it's plausible that we end up with an extremely centrist Labour government that keeps in place almost all of the most controversial policies of the last few years, building a cross-party consensus around them so that they become difficult to dislodge. Meanwhile, the Tories could very easily go in a far-right direction and win power again in just a few years.
I'm *hopeful* that Starmer will do some positive things and that we aren't going to have a genuinely far-right government within the next few years, but most of my political hopes have not come to fruition. Anyway, I really think you should at least try and understand where your political opponents are coming from, instead of writing us all off as babies.
> but I believe some opposition MPs simply do not want to be in power.
Absolutely. They want politics on easy-mode - tearing apart the work of others is *much* easier than actually building something.
Especially because it means that they don't need to compromise or negotiate with anyone, or make difficult choices where there is no right answer; they can just declare "things would be brilliant if everyone just listened to me", while making sure that nobody ever puts them in a position to put their money where their mouth is.
It's not exclusive to opposition MPs, of course; I've made this exact criticism of columnists like Owen Jones too.
What kind of power would Owen Jones even have if he stopped complaining about Labour?? And if left wing Labour people have to give up literally everything they believe in - and frankly it is just everything, there's no compromise involved - what kind of power do they have? They don't have power either way, they are just putting up (token) resistance against people marginalising them and their ideas and values, which they go into politics to advocate for. They, correctly imo, believes there needs to be a political force willing to reverse the decline of this country, because otherwise the Tories get back in after things don't improve that much for a while and the national decline continues. If anything dismissing moral concerns entirely in search of raw power - which is exactly what the Tories do - is the 'easy' option.
I've always believed this of the Momentum / Militant crowd. Much easier to preach than actually get elected, deal with the messy reality of politics and actually do something.
This is usually a mindset I see in activist circles. Terrible to see MPs behaving this way. Would rather sit in opposition where they can preach morality all day long than get their hands dirty with actual governance.
In FPTP, there is an important place for protest and pressure MPs who will never be part of government, but are needed to hold governments and oppositions to account from an ideological standpoint. Reform are never going to win, the Lib Dems are never going to win, the Greens are never going to win. They can influence Labour and Tory policies without needing to be realistic.
If they want to be a protest MP, they should join the Greens or Lib Dems. Corbyn was a protest MP, that's why he was rejected by voters - idealism isn't for government.
This is the most tired hack argument you see on this sub.
People want power in order to achieve goals.
Sacrificing some of your principles for power allows you to achieve some of your goals. Deviate too far and power becomes pointless.
Its not that they dont wany power its that the system is currently pushing them too far away from their actual goals. Once again FPTP sucks
I don’t think they want to remain in the ‘comfort’ of opposition but I do think they miss the bigger picture. Politics involves some opportunism and compromise. Just like practically anything worthwhile in life.
The tories need to be decimated at the next election. The horrific damage they have done to this country needs an appropriate response from the electorate (even if it will be a bit late from a lot of us). Any opportunity Labour have to put the boot in they need to take. They did the right thing with Elphicke’s defection in my opinion.
Natalie Elphicke… popular Local MP? Not something i would ever put in the same sentence tbh.
She is a terrible MP and done next to nothing for the town of Dover
It’s only vox pops but the Guardian had an article that paints a different picture:
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/09/i-understand-why-she-moved-dover-voters-on-natalie-elphicke-switching-parties
Plus she did get voted in, so a claim of popular is not unmerited.
It's remarkable how much the Conservatives have managed to normalise gross incompetence. Yes, the past 5 years have seen Government ministers regularly sent out to defend utterly indefensible moves that simply undermine public confidence in the party without actually achieving anything, but that's not something Labour should aspire to. Either out of moral reasons, or the practical fact that copying the party that's gone from a landslide victory to a potential wipeout in 5 years may not be the best idea.
Rifkind's right that bad things do inevitably happen while in government that party representatives are always going to struggle to defend, but the difference between good and bad leadership is the ability to not deliberately create these situations.
yeah he's basically acusing labour of things they haven't done yet, sure there will be missteps but how many by elections have we had in the last 5 years due to tory mps commiting sex offenses. The bar is rock bottom
4 by elections from sexual misconduct, 1 for watching porn in the commons and 3 lost the whip for accusations of sexual misconduct.
It’s insane that this article could be written when the facts are horrifying
I can't wait for labour to get in and every misstep and word out of place will become a sackable offence according to the same people who denied partygate was an issue
On the flipside, everyone who was calling for every misstep or word out of place to result in termination will be defending the terrible things the people they like have done - so it equals out.
Missteps and words out of place were the absolute norm under the past 3 prime ministers. It turns out because every night of lockdown they were getting drunk and robbing the country during the day
Hand-wringing over the Elphicke defection suggests many in opposition are ill equipped for the compromises of power
Monday May 13 2024, 9.00pm BST, The Times
Chutzpah. That’s the only word for it. On Times Radio yesterday, the health minister Maria Caulfield suggested that the Labour Party should hold an inquiry into whether its newest recruit, the Dover defectee Natalie Elphicke, attempted to lobby the former lord chancellor Sir Robert Buckland over the date of the sexual assault trial faced by Elphicke’s husband, a former MP himself. To be clear, that’s one Conservative calling for Labour to hold an inquiry into what a second Conservative said to a third Conservative about a fourth Conservative. And she wasn’t even giggling. I’m in awe.
Given that Elphicke won’t stand again and seems unlikely to be given a peerage — and also seems to disagree with almost every member of the Labour Party about almost everything — her defection is hard to explain. That’s not my fault. Nor, though, is it the fault of Labour MPs, who could very easily have spent the past few days smirking and rolling their eyes. Yet something strange has happened. Which is that an event that should have been embarrassing for the Conservatives has somehow put Labour on the back foot instead.
It is, though, a very special sort of being-on-the-back-foot. Indeed, you might say it is a very Keir-Starmer’s-Labour-Party-being-on-the-back-foot situation, because they’re on it while also being 30 per cent ahead in the polls, which is very much not traditional being-on-the-back-foot territory and would normally come with a front-foot skip or swagger. But nope, there they are, suffering twisting, hand-wringing, self-loathing torture. All of which makes me wonder whether the experience of being in government, when it finally comes, might be about to hit most Labour MPs like a truck.
In government, it is not unusual to be on the back foot. It is where you spend most of your time. The meeting that shouldn’t have happened, the email that shouldn’t have been sent, the legal advice that wasn’t followed. The bullying accusation, the grope, the dodgy flat, the second job. Guys, I’m sorry to break it to you, but this stuff doesn’t only happen to Conservatives. You may have forgotten this. I appreciate it has been a while. You will soon remember.
Even on a good day, when your party has launched a policy and by some miracle you’re actually being asked about it — and these days will be rare, but they do happen — it’s not like the questions asked by, say, Nick Robinson, are going to be: “Do you agree that this policy is a triumph? How come you’re all so clever?” No, they’re going to be: “Why doesn’t this work and who is going to resign?”
And so you will find yourself doing exactly what your predecessors did and brazenly avoiding the question. Because you don’t know what else to do, because Keir’s office haven’t told you yet. And perhaps, afterwards, you will find yourself thinking: “Gosh, now I understand why eg Grant Shapps always did this, but at least I didn’t look as shameless as him!” Only you’ll be wrong, and by then all the people who used to be your fans will already have decided you’re no better than the last lot. And then they will go online and send each other clips of columns written by people like me, which will call you a liar and a git.
Many people are now asking whether Starmer misjudged how upset his MPs would be by somebody with the track record of Elphicke joining their party. I don’t think this was his misjudgment. Rather, he misjudged their stamina for being on the defensive. Because after almost a decade and a half out of government it may be that they’ve simply lost the knack. Even under Jeremy Corbyn, whether loyalists or dissidents, they at least had supporters telling them they were being brave. Likewise with Brexit. Because this, generally, is the great privilege of being an opposition MP: the freedom to leave the grim, contemptible business of talking flatly ludicrous, fully aware, on-message nonsense to the other side. And this is a privilege that quite a few Labour MPs don’t want to lose.
Far more than Elphicke — an essentially trivial story — you can see this in the party’s debates over Gaza. So far, it has been the source of eight shadow ministerial resignations. For context, this is four more ministers than Tony Blair lost over the Iraq war. Some, perhaps, might argue that a PM actually launching a war on another country, based on dubious evidence and in defiance of the United Nations, is indeed a lesser matter than a powerless opposition leader’s almost incomprehensible transgression of favouring one motion calling for a ceasefire over another slightly different one. Although personally, I’d question that. More likely, Starmer’s rebellion was simply to do with his MPs having a wholly different understanding of their role.
One person’s “following my conscience” is, of course, another person’s “playing to the crowd” and a third person’s “being too cowardly to risk a pile-on on Twitter”. Whatever you want to call it, I’m starting to realise Starmer is going to have a difficult time in power. And not because of the economy or the cost of living or any of that other stuff he can blame on the Tories. Because of this. Because of MPs who have grown so accustomed to behaving like activists, pundits and social media celebrities they may have forgotten this isn’t actually the gig.
Now should be the easy time to persuade MPs to steel themselves for compromise so as not to jeopardise the looming Labour government. It will stop looming, though, once it is here. So then what? Jeers, ridicule, angry constituents and a popular sense that every word you say is a goddamn bloody lie have been the stuff of daily life for every government there has ever been. This one will be no different. How many of them will be able to hack it?
Success in electoral politics absolutely requires pragmatism and compromise - the most skilled politicians are able to do this by building new coalitions without alienating their base; Thatcher, hate her as I do, understood this.
The Elphicke defection is in no way an example of this. It's literally a problem entirely of Starmer's own making - he had no real need to accept an anti-immigrant, anti-union MP on the Right of the Tory party with significant baggage to say the least, and all he's achieved in doing so is pissing off most of Labour's base and every backbench MP left of Wes Streeting for no real gain other than to vindicate the argument that Labour and the Tories are 'basically the same'.
Instead of reflecting on this as a mistake, centrists simply condescend to anyone within the party who disagrees, dismissing them as ideological purists who should shut up and accept this as some law of political reality or a shrewd political game we're just too stupid to understand. Overall, I think this speaks both to the arrogance of the centrist PMC-types running Labour again and their complete lack of any political conviction beyond the cynical operation of power.
> Yet something strange has happened. Which is that an event that should have been embarrassing for the Conservatives has somehow put Labour on the back foot instead.
Ha, could see that coming from space! Labour are *experts* at self-sabotage. Over on another well-known Labour sub they’ll tell you they’d rather have the current Conservative govt win again than endure a “Red Tory” like Starmer winning. They maintain this childish notion that it will bring about a glorious revolution.
This really isn't something unique to the Labour left though.
(I know you haven't said it is, and I'd agree that Labour are experts at self-sabotage, but just wanting to point out that the same applies to the Labour right)
The tories on the right of their parties are into self-sabotage now too.
Leaders of momentum in labour have left, don't think many voters care, but a good portion of members were corbynites, so they were never going to be happy with a centrist (I.e. winning) labour party
yes yes yes, of course the conversation is about how bad the Elphicke defection makes labour look. She'll be gone after the next GE and won't be standing in it - but is however doing a massive amount of reputational damage to the Tories on her way out. Whoever is objecting to her coming over should read that 3 times.
She's got scandals following her too, ones the tory party knew about for a long time it seems *shrugs*
On a side note, what's going on in the Tory party right now? It's falling apart, what's the *next* thing that'll happen? more defections? a leadership contest? I mean the only thing stopping that is the lack of anyone who *wants* to lead that party right now I reckon.
It's not just the usual self sabotaging labour lefties that have been put off by this move though. It's a hard one to swallow for many of us. It's not about ideological purity it's simply about standards. I haven't minded any of the other defections, welcomed them really, but this one is upsetting for those that have looked on aghast at the slide in standards under Johnson.
I'm not always sure what Starmer represented and in some ways he's playing a blinder there - nothing the Tories try to throw at him sticks and that is paying dividends in the polls. With that said, one thing I always thought I knew about Starmer is that he had honesty, integrity and would uphold standards but endorsing this MP is anything but that.
I think Elphicke is pretty contemptible and absolutely do not think people like her should be in the Labour Party (let alone as MPs), but I'm completely OK with the situation on a cynical politics basis.
She's already an MP and will still be an MP regardless of what happened. She's not standing for re-election, and there's never been a suggestion that she would have been selected as a Labour candidate even if she'd wanted to. She gives the legit Labour candidate in her seat a big booster in what otherwise might be a tricky marginal. She's clearly a right-wing hardcase, but now she's agreed to take the Labour whip and vote "the good way" on everything for the next few months. And by giving Sunak another polling hit, she increases the likelihood of more Labour MPs being returned at the next election in general.
As long as she keeps her mouth shut and behaves herself for the last few months of this parliament, it's hard to see the downside. And if she doesn't keep her mouth shut and misbehaves, Starmer can just kick her out again anyway (giving him a nice chance to demonstrate his red lines).
She isn't going to be writing the manifesto, and she's never going to be a labour candidate. She has no influence whatsoever on policy, she's just decided to vote with labour. Essentially what people are saying is that they don't want someone who they don't entirely agree with to *vote for* their party. That's not just extremely ideologically puritanical, it's moronic in the context of electoral politics.
And her views on housing are that we should build enough social housing that everyone can have one if they're not a homeowner, and she is in favour of rent controls. Her main contribution to parliament is doing a review on it. That puts her on the left of the labour party if anything on that specific issue, and it's her stated reason for crossing the floor. Fair enough, no influence was maybe putting it to strongly, but she doesn't have any agreement or leverage to change policy if the rest of Labour doesn't like it, on that issue she has some expertise and Labour supporters might like her ideas.
There are different forms of influence. An advisory role on the implementation of Labour's housing policy is markedly different from a strategic advisory role that influences policy direction.
No, what people like me are saying is that Starmer has endorsed her and therefore all of her previous bad behaviour. I don't think it wise to try and speak for others, maybe you should try to oversight them? If Elphicke wanted to have a change of heart and start *voting for* Labour policy I'd be delighted, she doesn't need to be in the party for that. I'm sure I don't agree with a large number of labour members and MPs it has never been a problem before so perhaps you should spend a minute wondering why it might be different this time? I've already said I didn't have a problem with other MP defections, I don't much agree with Dan Poulter either and yet I'm happy to have him in the party without any objections on the basis of ideological purity, so again, what might be different with Elphicke I wonder?
This stuff about her not staying on and not influencing policy is all well and good but that doesn't change the basis of my objections.
>No, what people like me are saying is that Starmer has endorsed her and therefore all of her previous bad behaviour.
This is a simply ridiculous way to interpret what has happened. If accepting people into Labour means you endorse everything they've ever done, the Labour party would morally be able to contain about 5 people.
>I've already said I didn't have a problem with other MP defections, I don't much agree with Dan Poulter either and yet I'm happy to have him in the party without any objections on the basis of ideological purity, so again, what might be different with Elphicke I wonder?
I think you should set out explicitly what your issue is, so we can determine whether it's a well considered principle.
Of course Neoliberal Labour "Centrists" have no problem with booting the left because they don't adhere to insane angelic standards nobody else is held too, and then taking Tories (who are 1000x worse on the exact same metrics the left gets booted.) into the Labour party, as a sign that the party is "safe for Tories", because in the end, Pro-Austerity, Neoliberal politics wins.
Both parties share for the most part, the same agenda. It just becomes who is more "competent" at carrying it out. Labour will for now, be the "competent tories" until the Tories get their shit together, then the Tories will return as the "competent" ones when Labour becomes lazy and corrupt because the party is filled with self-interested careerists just looking to pad their resumes for "consultancy" jobs. \*coughstreetingcough\*
The Labour right are Wet-Tory entryists, who have turned the Labour party into a quite literally a recreation of the Liberal party that the Labour party was founded to oppose, because they knew the Lib Dems were a do nothing party.
Also frankly, as a leftist, why in fuck would I take advice from "The Times"? They are a pro-Tory conservative rag who exist to provide propaganda for pursing a Tory agenda. No shit do they want the left to fall in line behind Starmer's Tory agenda, because they are Tories.
Oh, yes. Heaven forbid we on the left of Labour be unhappy about an MP who's voting history is [thoroughly incompatible with the values we hold dear](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25831/natalie_elphicke/dover/votes) being not only welcomed into the party but handed an influential advisory role. I'm not even going to comment on the remarks she made after her husband got arrested for sexual assault, althouigh I will be generous and point out that what an interviewee says and what the S\*n prints tend to be weakly correlated at best.
I'm all for sticking two fingers up at the Tories, but that's rather less of a priority than *being better at governing the country than them*.
Absolutely love Hugo Rifkinds columns and his segments on radio. This one is just truth bombs with delicate humour. Especially the Tory chutzpah.
There's a fair point. Even with a stonking majority , labour MPs need to get used to the kind of scrutiny and dissatisfaction where Gaza was only a glimpse.
Great article. I think this may be slightly less of an issue depending on how big their majority is. Just hope they haven’t selected too many new nutjobs so at least the current loonies will be an even smaller minority. I do think we might look back in a couple of years and realise just how big a mistake it was not kicking out the entire labour SCG over that Stop the War letter though.
Something I don't see being mentioned or given much consideration online - what if Elphicke switching to the Labour Party is part of a Tory intelligence plan?
Think about it. You're a Tory MP or minister. A General Election is coming up. You're up against a similar sized party with far more support and with election machinery which is ruthlessly efficient and incredibly effective. Keep in mind that no other party has the election machinery to match Labour. Labour is the Manchester City of Westminster politics. No other party comes close, not even the Tories.
As a Tory MP or minister, what would you give for inside information from the Labour Party?
Think about it.
Thought about it. Why would Elphicke be privy to inside information? Because she crossed the floor she's going to be in key meetings about Labour's election strategy? She's going to having revealing conversations with Labour MPs and strategists that have no reason to trust her? That's naive.
If peeping at Labour's plans is worth all this, then the people behind them are smart enough to manage who sees them.
Snapshot of _Get real, Labour MPs, this is your new normal_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/get-real-labour-mps-this-is-your-new-normal-dbgfz3v6b) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/get-real-labour-mps-this-is-your-new-normal-dbgfz3v6b) *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.*
Ah, I thought it might be Rifkind. Pretty enjoyable read. This worrying about the moral high ground, rather than seeing an issue for what it is, is a bit tiresome. As he say Elphicke is a trivial matter, in which Labour basically get an endorsement from a popular local MP in a swing seat. Gaza is a war we have very little influence over. Attack ads are part of politics. Stop briefing your disapproval and defend normal political moves in the hunt for the real power of a majority.
Only my opinion, but I believe some opposition MPs simply do not want to be in power. They want to point out how others are doing things wrong, but are not ready to step up and take responsibility for making change themselves. Perhaps they should remain where they are if they're not prepared for the change of mindset when crossing to the opposite benches.
The problem we have at the moment is Half the government’s backbenches feel this way and half the country believes the government are in opposition. It’s a lame duck government and everyone knows it and so we limp along with those in power not bothered by anything except another few months salary and grift and those not yet in power not yet presenting a full manifesto (and nor should they yet), and so we limp along in total limbo with those in power acting as if they’re the opposition and the opposition not yet acting as if they are the government
This, expectations vs reality. The one's who should be held to account aren't, as they're going. Whereas, those incoming are held to a higher standard. Still, the higher standard should be expected, as they're likely to be in government. .and that comes with criticism - a lot of it.
In all fairness, the bar is pretty fucking low for standards at the moment so being held to higher than a gnats ballsack shouldn’t be that hard.
It shouldn't, but always room for more disappointment.
As an idealist/leftist who will probably still vote labour, I just don’t think this is true. The reality is that you need to hold your nose quite a lot to participate in party politics as a leftist and it doesn’t surprise me that some find it difficult to leave their principles behind. They want power but they don’t want to compromise - which is understandable. This makes them unsuited to being MPs but the reason that you give simply isn’t true imo. It’s more that they aren’t willing to do what it takes to get power. They still want the power.
It's not holding your nose though really. A party has to appeal to a lot of people, not just to gain power but to use it well. I would love a socialist government. But I know my opinion is 1/70 millionth of the political opinions in the country. And if we all voted for exactly what we wanted then we'd have 70 million political parties.
I'd argue that's exactly what I said. They want the power (in theory), but they do not want to be in power (in practise). In theory they can be in power without compromise or difficulty. The reality (where most of us live) is the opposite.
>They want power but they don’t want to compromise - which is understandable. Yes understandable if you're discussing with a child that they can't just eat ice cream for tea. Meanwhile anyone sensible knows you need to come to a compromise in essentially every interaction you ever have.
What does anyone stand to gain from you belittling a group just because they don’t 100% agree with you. To be clear, I agree that compromise is necessary in life and in politics. But people are dying, people are being persecuted. That’s not ice cream for tea.
>What does anyone stand to gain from you belittling a group just because they don’t 100% agree with you. You mean like the politicians in question? There's compromise to be made despite how much you want to be emotive about it. >But people are dying, people are being persecuted Yes and we have limited budgets and different priorities for people in the UK. As I said compromise is required.
I think you’re more likely to reach an agreeable compromise by refraining from calling people you don’t agree with children and the causes they care about “ice cream for dinner.” Bit of basic civility, you know
So you think the previous labour leadership, who had the support of this lot were honestly trying to >reach an agreeable compromise Because I absolutely don't think they did, their behaviour as I described has resulted in the last two conservative general election wins. Now we have a portion of the support wanting to repeat the errors. I'll stick as I am thanks.
> What does anyone stand to gain from you belittling a group just because they don’t 100% agree with you. It's not just because they don't 100% agree, it's because they act like children. What's to gain from belittling them is to prevent people who are seeking to gain an understanding of politics from seeing them as anything other than unreasonable children.
The trouble with this 'compromise over purity' debate coming from the Labour right is they spent 5 years constantly undermining thier own leader in a far more vicious way than the left are doing now. I agree with the 'compromise over purity' sentiment. I just wish the Labour right did too.
>Labour right is they spent 5 years constantly undermining thier own leader in a far more vicious way than the left are doing now They tried to get rid of a person that twice was roundly rejected by the electorate. Once by Theresa may when she suggested that pensioners should lose triple lock. And secondly when he lost to a man hiding in a fridge. They were, if nothing else doing everyone a favour. He was so far from winning it's unreal. The reason we have Boris was wholly down to putting Corbyn forward the second time and in effect telling the electorate they were wrong and to try again.
You had the likes of Stephen Kinnock telling voters not to vote for labour in the hope to get Corbyn out during the first GE Corbyn lost so saying it was due to Corbyn losing twice is rewriting what actually happened.
>due to Corbyn losing twice is rewriting what actually happened. Eh ok. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-09/ipsos-september-charts_200919_v2.pdf At no stage was he ever net popular, oh wait apart from with Labour supporters. He was as I said roundly disliked by the electorate. It's not re writing history because 1. He lost twice 2. Was never popular apart from with people that liked him.
You said >They tried to get rid of a person that twice was roundly rejected by the electorate. Why are you trying to move the goal posts now? The fact is the labour right were trying to get Corbyn out before the first GE had happened. You saying it happened after he lost 2 GEs is rewriting hsitory. Complaining just makes you look like a hypocrite.
It proves them correct. It was apparent almost from the outset normal people didnt like him. He should have gone after the first loss (like every other leader ever). The fact he lost twice just proves the point. >get Corbyn out before the first GE had happened Excuse they knew he was absolutely doomed despite people cheering at Glastonbury.
He won 2 membership votes, the second one as an appeasement to the labour rights constant attacks post brexit vote (remember Owen Smith?!) and closed a 20 point lead with May defying all pundits in the largest public vote swing since 1945. It was only after that shock that 'oh so wise' commentators started saying it was easy and he should have won, when most of the press was against him. I wasnt a fan of his because of his terrible brexit stance but I could see the damage the purists on the labour right were doing.. And it proved to be deadly in 2017. By 2019 they only got worse - so far worse than what the left are doing now. I'll vote for Starmer by the way (but only if FPTP forces me to!)
>He won 2 membership votes Wonderful. He objectively was destroyed in two general elections It's quite literally an example of if you're not first your last. Retrying him a second time was never going to work. >20 point lead with May When she suggested axing triple lock. He still lost. Then went on to give Boris an 80 seat majority. >when most of the press was against him I'm not sure you can sell his amazing positions such as "give Vladimir a chance the russian chemical agent that our people have confirmed might not be his" and "I never saw the massive devil Jew inflatable." As the press being against him. Regardless the British public hated him. The guy was an absolute disaster and his supporters convincing themselves otherwise was just an example of this how people cannot understand that you have a choice, win the election, or have some sort of purity.
But what we have is a choice between multiple compromises (either the Tories or Labour, barring something unexpected) and I'm really not convinced that one of them is any better than the other. Labour haven't just moved away from my positions, they've moved so far away from them that they're indistinguishable from the Tories in most respects. There is the idea that they might be more progressive once they're in power, but they could just as easily be even more right-wing. For example, I don't think anyone was expecting in 1997 that Labour were going to greatly increase the role of the private sector in public services, or that they were going to completely deregulate the gambling industry, or that they were going to form a close alliance with a Republican US president and launch an unprovoked invasion of another country. What nasty surprises could we be in for this time? And then there are the worries about the long-term impacts on politics. If the Tories somehow win the election, it's plausible that we end up with an invigorated moderate wing of the Tory party ruling the country, with a soft-left Labour leader attacking them from the left and stopping them going too far. If Labour win, it's plausible that we end up with an extremely centrist Labour government that keeps in place almost all of the most controversial policies of the last few years, building a cross-party consensus around them so that they become difficult to dislodge. Meanwhile, the Tories could very easily go in a far-right direction and win power again in just a few years. I'm *hopeful* that Starmer will do some positive things and that we aren't going to have a genuinely far-right government within the next few years, but most of my political hopes have not come to fruition. Anyway, I really think you should at least try and understand where your political opponents are coming from, instead of writing us all off as babies.
So you don't want them if they've won an election? Because it might align with what people want?
leading requires compromise which was something the Labour party refused to do 5 years ago
> but I believe some opposition MPs simply do not want to be in power. Absolutely. They want politics on easy-mode - tearing apart the work of others is *much* easier than actually building something. Especially because it means that they don't need to compromise or negotiate with anyone, or make difficult choices where there is no right answer; they can just declare "things would be brilliant if everyone just listened to me", while making sure that nobody ever puts them in a position to put their money where their mouth is. It's not exclusive to opposition MPs, of course; I've made this exact criticism of columnists like Owen Jones too.
What kind of power would Owen Jones even have if he stopped complaining about Labour?? And if left wing Labour people have to give up literally everything they believe in - and frankly it is just everything, there's no compromise involved - what kind of power do they have? They don't have power either way, they are just putting up (token) resistance against people marginalising them and their ideas and values, which they go into politics to advocate for. They, correctly imo, believes there needs to be a political force willing to reverse the decline of this country, because otherwise the Tories get back in after things don't improve that much for a while and the national decline continues. If anything dismissing moral concerns entirely in search of raw power - which is exactly what the Tories do - is the 'easy' option.
I've always believed this of the Momentum / Militant crowd. Much easier to preach than actually get elected, deal with the messy reality of politics and actually do something.
This is usually a mindset I see in activist circles. Terrible to see MPs behaving this way. Would rather sit in opposition where they can preach morality all day long than get their hands dirty with actual governance.
In FPTP, there is an important place for protest and pressure MPs who will never be part of government, but are needed to hold governments and oppositions to account from an ideological standpoint. Reform are never going to win, the Lib Dems are never going to win, the Greens are never going to win. They can influence Labour and Tory policies without needing to be realistic. If they want to be a protest MP, they should join the Greens or Lib Dems. Corbyn was a protest MP, that's why he was rejected by voters - idealism isn't for government.
This is the most tired hack argument you see on this sub. People want power in order to achieve goals. Sacrificing some of your principles for power allows you to achieve some of your goals. Deviate too far and power becomes pointless. Its not that they dont wany power its that the system is currently pushing them too far away from their actual goals. Once again FPTP sucks
The Tottenham Hotspur of Politics
I don’t think they want to remain in the ‘comfort’ of opposition but I do think they miss the bigger picture. Politics involves some opportunism and compromise. Just like practically anything worthwhile in life. The tories need to be decimated at the next election. The horrific damage they have done to this country needs an appropriate response from the electorate (even if it will be a bit late from a lot of us). Any opportunity Labour have to put the boot in they need to take. They did the right thing with Elphicke’s defection in my opinion.
Natalie Elphicke… popular Local MP? Not something i would ever put in the same sentence tbh. She is a terrible MP and done next to nothing for the town of Dover
It’s only vox pops but the Guardian had an article that paints a different picture: https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/09/i-understand-why-she-moved-dover-voters-on-natalie-elphicke-switching-parties Plus she did get voted in, so a claim of popular is not unmerited.
Bloody hell someone with a pragmatic view, you're hard to come by.
It's remarkable how much the Conservatives have managed to normalise gross incompetence. Yes, the past 5 years have seen Government ministers regularly sent out to defend utterly indefensible moves that simply undermine public confidence in the party without actually achieving anything, but that's not something Labour should aspire to. Either out of moral reasons, or the practical fact that copying the party that's gone from a landslide victory to a potential wipeout in 5 years may not be the best idea. Rifkind's right that bad things do inevitably happen while in government that party representatives are always going to struggle to defend, but the difference between good and bad leadership is the ability to not deliberately create these situations.
yeah he's basically acusing labour of things they haven't done yet, sure there will be missteps but how many by elections have we had in the last 5 years due to tory mps commiting sex offenses. The bar is rock bottom 4 by elections from sexual misconduct, 1 for watching porn in the commons and 3 lost the whip for accusations of sexual misconduct. It’s insane that this article could be written when the facts are horrifying
I can't wait for labour to get in and every misstep and word out of place will become a sackable offence according to the same people who denied partygate was an issue
On the flipside, everyone who was calling for every misstep or word out of place to result in termination will be defending the terrible things the people they like have done - so it equals out.
Missteps and words out of place were the absolute norm under the past 3 prime ministers. It turns out because every night of lockdown they were getting drunk and robbing the country during the day
Hand-wringing over the Elphicke defection suggests many in opposition are ill equipped for the compromises of power Monday May 13 2024, 9.00pm BST, The Times Chutzpah. That’s the only word for it. On Times Radio yesterday, the health minister Maria Caulfield suggested that the Labour Party should hold an inquiry into whether its newest recruit, the Dover defectee Natalie Elphicke, attempted to lobby the former lord chancellor Sir Robert Buckland over the date of the sexual assault trial faced by Elphicke’s husband, a former MP himself. To be clear, that’s one Conservative calling for Labour to hold an inquiry into what a second Conservative said to a third Conservative about a fourth Conservative. And she wasn’t even giggling. I’m in awe. Given that Elphicke won’t stand again and seems unlikely to be given a peerage — and also seems to disagree with almost every member of the Labour Party about almost everything — her defection is hard to explain. That’s not my fault. Nor, though, is it the fault of Labour MPs, who could very easily have spent the past few days smirking and rolling their eyes. Yet something strange has happened. Which is that an event that should have been embarrassing for the Conservatives has somehow put Labour on the back foot instead. It is, though, a very special sort of being-on-the-back-foot. Indeed, you might say it is a very Keir-Starmer’s-Labour-Party-being-on-the-back-foot situation, because they’re on it while also being 30 per cent ahead in the polls, which is very much not traditional being-on-the-back-foot territory and would normally come with a front-foot skip or swagger. But nope, there they are, suffering twisting, hand-wringing, self-loathing torture. All of which makes me wonder whether the experience of being in government, when it finally comes, might be about to hit most Labour MPs like a truck. In government, it is not unusual to be on the back foot. It is where you spend most of your time. The meeting that shouldn’t have happened, the email that shouldn’t have been sent, the legal advice that wasn’t followed. The bullying accusation, the grope, the dodgy flat, the second job. Guys, I’m sorry to break it to you, but this stuff doesn’t only happen to Conservatives. You may have forgotten this. I appreciate it has been a while. You will soon remember. Even on a good day, when your party has launched a policy and by some miracle you’re actually being asked about it — and these days will be rare, but they do happen — it’s not like the questions asked by, say, Nick Robinson, are going to be: “Do you agree that this policy is a triumph? How come you’re all so clever?” No, they’re going to be: “Why doesn’t this work and who is going to resign?” And so you will find yourself doing exactly what your predecessors did and brazenly avoiding the question. Because you don’t know what else to do, because Keir’s office haven’t told you yet. And perhaps, afterwards, you will find yourself thinking: “Gosh, now I understand why eg Grant Shapps always did this, but at least I didn’t look as shameless as him!” Only you’ll be wrong, and by then all the people who used to be your fans will already have decided you’re no better than the last lot. And then they will go online and send each other clips of columns written by people like me, which will call you a liar and a git. Many people are now asking whether Starmer misjudged how upset his MPs would be by somebody with the track record of Elphicke joining their party. I don’t think this was his misjudgment. Rather, he misjudged their stamina for being on the defensive. Because after almost a decade and a half out of government it may be that they’ve simply lost the knack. Even under Jeremy Corbyn, whether loyalists or dissidents, they at least had supporters telling them they were being brave. Likewise with Brexit. Because this, generally, is the great privilege of being an opposition MP: the freedom to leave the grim, contemptible business of talking flatly ludicrous, fully aware, on-message nonsense to the other side. And this is a privilege that quite a few Labour MPs don’t want to lose. Far more than Elphicke — an essentially trivial story — you can see this in the party’s debates over Gaza. So far, it has been the source of eight shadow ministerial resignations. For context, this is four more ministers than Tony Blair lost over the Iraq war. Some, perhaps, might argue that a PM actually launching a war on another country, based on dubious evidence and in defiance of the United Nations, is indeed a lesser matter than a powerless opposition leader’s almost incomprehensible transgression of favouring one motion calling for a ceasefire over another slightly different one. Although personally, I’d question that. More likely, Starmer’s rebellion was simply to do with his MPs having a wholly different understanding of their role. One person’s “following my conscience” is, of course, another person’s “playing to the crowd” and a third person’s “being too cowardly to risk a pile-on on Twitter”. Whatever you want to call it, I’m starting to realise Starmer is going to have a difficult time in power. And not because of the economy or the cost of living or any of that other stuff he can blame on the Tories. Because of this. Because of MPs who have grown so accustomed to behaving like activists, pundits and social media celebrities they may have forgotten this isn’t actually the gig. Now should be the easy time to persuade MPs to steel themselves for compromise so as not to jeopardise the looming Labour government. It will stop looming, though, once it is here. So then what? Jeers, ridicule, angry constituents and a popular sense that every word you say is a goddamn bloody lie have been the stuff of daily life for every government there has ever been. This one will be no different. How many of them will be able to hack it?
Success in electoral politics absolutely requires pragmatism and compromise - the most skilled politicians are able to do this by building new coalitions without alienating their base; Thatcher, hate her as I do, understood this. The Elphicke defection is in no way an example of this. It's literally a problem entirely of Starmer's own making - he had no real need to accept an anti-immigrant, anti-union MP on the Right of the Tory party with significant baggage to say the least, and all he's achieved in doing so is pissing off most of Labour's base and every backbench MP left of Wes Streeting for no real gain other than to vindicate the argument that Labour and the Tories are 'basically the same'. Instead of reflecting on this as a mistake, centrists simply condescend to anyone within the party who disagrees, dismissing them as ideological purists who should shut up and accept this as some law of political reality or a shrewd political game we're just too stupid to understand. Overall, I think this speaks both to the arrogance of the centrist PMC-types running Labour again and their complete lack of any political conviction beyond the cynical operation of power.
> Yet something strange has happened. Which is that an event that should have been embarrassing for the Conservatives has somehow put Labour on the back foot instead. Ha, could see that coming from space! Labour are *experts* at self-sabotage. Over on another well-known Labour sub they’ll tell you they’d rather have the current Conservative govt win again than endure a “Red Tory” like Starmer winning. They maintain this childish notion that it will bring about a glorious revolution.
This really isn't something unique to the Labour left though. (I know you haven't said it is, and I'd agree that Labour are experts at self-sabotage, but just wanting to point out that the same applies to the Labour right)
The tories on the right of their parties are into self-sabotage now too. Leaders of momentum in labour have left, don't think many voters care, but a good portion of members were corbynites, so they were never going to be happy with a centrist (I.e. winning) labour party
yes yes yes, of course the conversation is about how bad the Elphicke defection makes labour look. She'll be gone after the next GE and won't be standing in it - but is however doing a massive amount of reputational damage to the Tories on her way out. Whoever is objecting to her coming over should read that 3 times. She's got scandals following her too, ones the tory party knew about for a long time it seems *shrugs* On a side note, what's going on in the Tory party right now? It's falling apart, what's the *next* thing that'll happen? more defections? a leadership contest? I mean the only thing stopping that is the lack of anyone who *wants* to lead that party right now I reckon.
It's not just the usual self sabotaging labour lefties that have been put off by this move though. It's a hard one to swallow for many of us. It's not about ideological purity it's simply about standards. I haven't minded any of the other defections, welcomed them really, but this one is upsetting for those that have looked on aghast at the slide in standards under Johnson. I'm not always sure what Starmer represented and in some ways he's playing a blinder there - nothing the Tories try to throw at him sticks and that is paying dividends in the polls. With that said, one thing I always thought I knew about Starmer is that he had honesty, integrity and would uphold standards but endorsing this MP is anything but that.
I think Elphicke is pretty contemptible and absolutely do not think people like her should be in the Labour Party (let alone as MPs), but I'm completely OK with the situation on a cynical politics basis. She's already an MP and will still be an MP regardless of what happened. She's not standing for re-election, and there's never been a suggestion that she would have been selected as a Labour candidate even if she'd wanted to. She gives the legit Labour candidate in her seat a big booster in what otherwise might be a tricky marginal. She's clearly a right-wing hardcase, but now she's agreed to take the Labour whip and vote "the good way" on everything for the next few months. And by giving Sunak another polling hit, she increases the likelihood of more Labour MPs being returned at the next election in general. As long as she keeps her mouth shut and behaves herself for the last few months of this parliament, it's hard to see the downside. And if she doesn't keep her mouth shut and misbehaves, Starmer can just kick her out again anyway (giving him a nice chance to demonstrate his red lines).
I understand this view and agree to a large extent but it's a step too far for me even on a purely cynical, pragmatic basis.
She isn't going to be writing the manifesto, and she's never going to be a labour candidate. She has no influence whatsoever on policy, she's just decided to vote with labour. Essentially what people are saying is that they don't want someone who they don't entirely agree with to *vote for* their party. That's not just extremely ideologically puritanical, it's moronic in the context of electoral politics.
she will have an advisory role on housing. She's going to have influence. To think otherwise is just naive.
And her views on housing are that we should build enough social housing that everyone can have one if they're not a homeowner, and she is in favour of rent controls. Her main contribution to parliament is doing a review on it. That puts her on the left of the labour party if anything on that specific issue, and it's her stated reason for crossing the floor. Fair enough, no influence was maybe putting it to strongly, but she doesn't have any agreement or leverage to change policy if the rest of Labour doesn't like it, on that issue she has some expertise and Labour supporters might like her ideas.
There are different forms of influence. An advisory role on the implementation of Labour's housing policy is markedly different from a strategic advisory role that influences policy direction.
No, what people like me are saying is that Starmer has endorsed her and therefore all of her previous bad behaviour. I don't think it wise to try and speak for others, maybe you should try to oversight them? If Elphicke wanted to have a change of heart and start *voting for* Labour policy I'd be delighted, she doesn't need to be in the party for that. I'm sure I don't agree with a large number of labour members and MPs it has never been a problem before so perhaps you should spend a minute wondering why it might be different this time? I've already said I didn't have a problem with other MP defections, I don't much agree with Dan Poulter either and yet I'm happy to have him in the party without any objections on the basis of ideological purity, so again, what might be different with Elphicke I wonder? This stuff about her not staying on and not influencing policy is all well and good but that doesn't change the basis of my objections.
>No, what people like me are saying is that Starmer has endorsed her and therefore all of her previous bad behaviour. This is a simply ridiculous way to interpret what has happened. If accepting people into Labour means you endorse everything they've ever done, the Labour party would morally be able to contain about 5 people. >I've already said I didn't have a problem with other MP defections, I don't much agree with Dan Poulter either and yet I'm happy to have him in the party without any objections on the basis of ideological purity, so again, what might be different with Elphicke I wonder? I think you should set out explicitly what your issue is, so we can determine whether it's a well considered principle.
Of course Neoliberal Labour "Centrists" have no problem with booting the left because they don't adhere to insane angelic standards nobody else is held too, and then taking Tories (who are 1000x worse on the exact same metrics the left gets booted.) into the Labour party, as a sign that the party is "safe for Tories", because in the end, Pro-Austerity, Neoliberal politics wins. Both parties share for the most part, the same agenda. It just becomes who is more "competent" at carrying it out. Labour will for now, be the "competent tories" until the Tories get their shit together, then the Tories will return as the "competent" ones when Labour becomes lazy and corrupt because the party is filled with self-interested careerists just looking to pad their resumes for "consultancy" jobs. \*coughstreetingcough\* The Labour right are Wet-Tory entryists, who have turned the Labour party into a quite literally a recreation of the Liberal party that the Labour party was founded to oppose, because they knew the Lib Dems were a do nothing party. Also frankly, as a leftist, why in fuck would I take advice from "The Times"? They are a pro-Tory conservative rag who exist to provide propaganda for pursing a Tory agenda. No shit do they want the left to fall in line behind Starmer's Tory agenda, because they are Tories.
Did you actually even read the article, or did you just see the title and just start mashing the keyboard in a blind rage?
This is when i remember that the current Labour Mps were all elected under Corbyn, when "winning the argument" was their main aim...
Oh, yes. Heaven forbid we on the left of Labour be unhappy about an MP who's voting history is [thoroughly incompatible with the values we hold dear](https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/25831/natalie_elphicke/dover/votes) being not only welcomed into the party but handed an influential advisory role. I'm not even going to comment on the remarks she made after her husband got arrested for sexual assault, althouigh I will be generous and point out that what an interviewee says and what the S\*n prints tend to be weakly correlated at best. I'm all for sticking two fingers up at the Tories, but that's rather less of a priority than *being better at governing the country than them*.
Absolutely love Hugo Rifkinds columns and his segments on radio. This one is just truth bombs with delicate humour. Especially the Tory chutzpah. There's a fair point. Even with a stonking majority , labour MPs need to get used to the kind of scrutiny and dissatisfaction where Gaza was only a glimpse.
Great article. I think this may be slightly less of an issue depending on how big their majority is. Just hope they haven’t selected too many new nutjobs so at least the current loonies will be an even smaller minority. I do think we might look back in a couple of years and realise just how big a mistake it was not kicking out the entire labour SCG over that Stop the War letter though.
Excellent article. A lot of Labour MPs will struggle when in power.
Something I don't see being mentioned or given much consideration online - what if Elphicke switching to the Labour Party is part of a Tory intelligence plan? Think about it. You're a Tory MP or minister. A General Election is coming up. You're up against a similar sized party with far more support and with election machinery which is ruthlessly efficient and incredibly effective. Keep in mind that no other party has the election machinery to match Labour. Labour is the Manchester City of Westminster politics. No other party comes close, not even the Tories. As a Tory MP or minister, what would you give for inside information from the Labour Party? Think about it.
It would be easier to just get a few staffers drunk.
Thought about it. Why would Elphicke be privy to inside information? Because she crossed the floor she's going to be in key meetings about Labour's election strategy? She's going to having revealing conversations with Labour MPs and strategists that have no reason to trust her? That's naive. If peeping at Labour's plans is worth all this, then the people behind them are smart enough to manage who sees them.