• Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    The only reason Elphicke’s defection was accepted was because it further damaged the government, and she’s not standing in this election so it was an easy win for Labour.

    • streetlights@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      My personal opinion, which I accept is not universal, is that this has damaged Labour far more than the Tories. This is a perfect example of putting party before principles.

      • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        Not according to the opinion polls. The only people who might take issue are political nerds, the majority of the electorate just saw “Tory defects to Labour” and that’s all that matters.

      • frankPodmore@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        This was my initial thought (after ‘What the fuck? Is there a different Natalie Elphicke?’), but when I saw she was standing down anyway, I could understand why they decided to let her in. As !Jackthelad@lemmy.world points out, it’s only us nerds who think much beyond the headlines.

      • HumanPenguin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        26 days ago

        Nope. Remember this was before the election was called.

        Accepting the tory defections under labours whip was a tactical requirement. As it was also an open statement by those MPs that they would support Labour in a vote of no confidence.

        The threat of more tories doing it. Or calling a inter party vote wass very likely way Rushi Sunk made his short notice soaked announcement when he did.

        Honestly there was a reason tory MPs with no history of Labour idealism. Were defecting while clearly stating they would not run post election.

        Parliment was in the process of planning to kick the government out by force. And these MPs agreed.

    • HumanPenguin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      Yep. I also think critics need to consider the timing of the defection.

      Pre the election announcement. Labour would need to have been considering the possibility of a Vote of no confidence in the government.

      At that point every tory MP taking the Labour whip. Was a move towards it being winnable. Rather then calling and depending on a % of tory whip MPs voting to lose their jobs.

      Tories moving to Labour were openly telling the party they would support them in such a vote. While in all cases saying we will not continue as Labour MPs if the tories lose. And an election is forced.

      Tactically at the time. Labour would be dumb to reject any tory defection.