Snapshot of _Six Tory MPs ready to defect as rebels say: ‘We can’t wait a year’_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/six-tory-mps-ready-to-defect-as-rebels-say-we-cant-wait-a-year-l60z9z30r)
*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.*
>I’d guess they’re all ‘Red Wall’
Seems likely but it might be 1 or 2 marginals in the South also.
Edit- if Amber Rudd hadn't stood down as an MP no doubt she'd be one of them. She had a majority of 346 in 2017...
The career ender for her wasn't that, but standing up to BoJo for the illegal early prorogation of parliament and the removal of MP whips, which to be fair she deserves credit for.
Think it's to do with Windrush. Hastings & Rye is LAB-CON swing seat and seems to follow the national trend. The current Tory MP won a reasonable majority in 2019.
I mean even if they defect, they should be deselected at the next opportunity.
Use them as needed, but if they had to go this far down the rabbit hole for them to turn then dump them at the next opportunity. Fuck them.
I don't take it as rude to be honest, that's a coming home from the pub and ridiculously principled statement. If the defections are the likes of the Christian Wakefords of this world I'm grand with it. Defections are very obviously valuable.
My point was more that defections of rats from a sinking ship could also be harmful to the credibility of your position, particularly if they have vocally gone to bat defending the incumbent government. Anyone that has gone this far I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, and I wouldn't be too upset if their political careers came to an end at the next election.
There are democratic positives in allowing defections. The British parliamentary system is already heavily controlled by the party whips and people's representatives often act more in the central party's interests rather than the local or national one. An MP willing to nuke their career & friendships is not doing so likely. This helps our MPs have some independence from the government and keep it more accountable. If we get too angry with defections and demand a by-election, it would return power to the party whips and ultimately the Prime Minister. Which is less democratic.
I can't entirely agree with this analysis. If the MP is willing to deflect, it usually means they're worried about losing their seat in the next election. It's pure self-preservation. They are not acting in the interests of their constituents or country. Wouldn't it make more sense to let the rats go down with the sinking ship and allow a devoted, local
Labour party member to take up the reigns? Otherwise, you're infesting the party with Thatcherites.
If you're only focused on winning you might as well be voting Tory to begin with.
No need for MPs with zero integrity.
Edit: wow a lot of desperate people in here
If 12 years of Tory rule isn't enough for some people to be able to accept compromise then i suppose nothing is. It would be noble if it weren't so ultimately damaging
Compromise is fine. Using exactly the same scumbags to run the country is just swapping a hat.
We need a party to remain shit enough for long enough for voters to actually put some effort into voting.
Absorbing some asshole MPs that helped orchestrate this bullshit just reinforces the narrative that 'they're all the same'
Less than a dozen ex tory MPs out of the around 330 MPs in a theoretical future Labour majority government is hardly "exactly the same scumbags" running the country. Engage your brain a little bit man.
EDIT: I'll post my reply to the guy below me here since he's used reddit's very cool and sane blocking mechanism to stop me from continuing our conversation:
>Okay, no need to start being childish and insulting.
What child tells people to "engage your brain"? Young Sheldon?
>And since it's 'only 6 mps', why do you care about them so much to begin with?
I would say the people against defections seem to care much more, but that's my subjective experience so YMMV. If you can't see how multiple defections are damaging to the Torys idk what to tell you.
>The conservatives will go down with or without them defecting.
This is absolutely in no way guaranteed, boarding on palpable arrogance.
Okay, no need to start being childish and insulting.
Yes, we're talking about 6 MPs. Principles apply to a much wider approach in selection of MPs though. Standards are important.
Don't give them any truth to the 'all the same' argument. It's far more damaging in the long term.
And since it's 'only 6 mps', why do you care about them so much to begin with? The conservatives will go down with or without them defecting.
You're desperate. The conservative party is getting rightly pounded for their shitshow over the past few years. We don't need to claw every possible advantage off them.
There's a definite move towards that - I understand you have to win to get anything done, but if Nigel Farage or George Galloway were sitting MPs I wouldn't want them anywhere near Labour either.
There's some level of integrity and there's so much INTEGRITY VIRTUE SIGNALLING that you know you're never going to win and would rather just sit waving your integrity dick around for everyone to see rather than do something constructive and change things for the better.
There are options between 0 and 100.
MPs are individually pretty pointless anyway. They almost never vote against their party because it is political suicide to do so. They compromise their principles everyday because the system is set up in such a way that you can't act on them.
Who they are as individuals is almost irrelevant on the big issues. The only thing it matters in is that they might speak up and advocate for certain things when possible, but when vote time comes around they won't vote with their principles 99.9% of the time if it means going against the whips.
I don't understand why they can't have anonymous ballots tbh. The government could still count on their MPs to vote with them on most issues, because they'll more often than not take the party line out of underlying beliefs. It would stop the out and out bullying and bribery of the whips meaning legislation gets pushed through even when it's unpopular amongst their own side though.
Also, unpopular PMs like Boris would have a much bigger problem on their hands, whereas at the moment his majority is so significant he still doesn't have to worry much about getting legislation through even with the backbench openly rebelling in a very public way.
I'm sure someone will come along and tell me why this would be unworkable and the breakdown of our democracy. And there's probably good arguments against it. But I really hate the fact that MPs campaign as individuals, and one of the arguments for FPTP is that voters vote for the MP rather than the party. When actually the MP is nothing more than a party drone, whatever lofty ideals they start off with.
It must also be quite disillusioning for a lot of MPs who think they can make a difference to realise that actually, your personal views don't matter at all.
>MPs are individually pretty pointless anyway. They almost never vote against their party because it is political suicide to do so.
No, scummy MPs with no integrity almost never vote against their party. These ones are rats off a sinking ship, and cannot be trust to actually do anything for the good of the community.
> They compromise their principles everyday because the system is set up in such a way that you can't act on them.
Some do. Like these ones. That's precisely why no other party should accept them.
>Who they are as individuals is almost irrelevant on the big issues.
I don't think that's true. Striving for a democracy where we elect decent people to represent us is a solid goal, and pays off in the long run.
> but when vote time comes around they won't vote with their principles 99.9% of the time if it means going against the whips.
Because you're voting in scumbags with no integrity or principles. They're just there to follow the party narrative and collect their salary.
>I don't understand why they can't have anonymous ballots tbh.
An interesting idea. Though I think the downside would be more than the upside. It's important for the public to see how their MP is representing their views in action.
We have the tools to get a government that doesn't rely on this whip nonsense. It's up to the voters to vote for it. Currently they don't, and the UK has the government it deserves.
It's not currently an option within the system though.
I'm not advocating for the status quo, I find a lack of integrity as repulsive as you do. What I do believe though, is that our current system selects for a lack of integrity, as noone else makes it in through the door, or very quickly has it knocked from them once they do.
It is really naive to cling to an impossible ideal at the expense of a realistic compromise. To have a chance of fixing the system then someone other than the Tories first has to win a general election. There's really no point crying out against the system and spiting yourself into irrelevance if you can compromise some lofty ideals for the greater good. That's politics and the world in general. I'm sorry that it is that way, but it is, and it won't change overnight.
> What I do believe though, is that our current system selects for a lack of integrity,
Ultimately this comes down to voters. Voters are selecting for a lack of integrity. You can even see it in this comment section, that people who hate the current government are entirely ready to keep supporting zero integrity MPs if they feel it gives them any better hope at a 'win'.
>It is really naive to cling to an impossible ideal
You claim it's impossible. I very much disagree. The Tories are taking a huge hit given the current trajectory. No party should be so desperate as to need to take in these assholes that these MPs are.
My own MP, Simon Fell (Barrow-in-Furness, red wall seat), was in the local Royal Mail office on Saturday doing a supporting the workers/man of the people act. He's already criticised Johnson in the past. I wonder if he was one of the 6?
I wonder if watching more Tory MPs go to Labour would make it more appealing for voters who haven't already switched to do so?
Not a big fan of it, but happy for politics to be played if it results in a Labour GE victory.
As long as the MPs vote for the more centre/ left wing policies and not just continue voting along the Tory lines while being "Labour". E.g. voting against free school meals if Labour propose it again just because the Tories are all voting against it.
I do share your concern but if they defect with a reasonable amount of time before the next GE then I think we'll see fairly quickly with how they vote under Labour. Presumably they'll be on thin ice from the start, if they vote against Labour motions on things like free school meals while in opposition I imagine they won't be kept as a Labour candidate in an election.
It's also worth noting that the reason for a lot of their votes may just be that they're having to vote with the Tory whip, it's something they pretty much have to do as back benchers if they want a chance at getting to a more influential position in the future. I'm not excusing them but it's just reality of politics.
I find it really hard to understand the mental gymnastics that someone would have to go through to be a Tory candidate in 2019 under Boris' 'Get Brexit Done' agenda, and then 2.5 years later decide that they actually belong in the Labour party.
I can understand why you might feel a moral obligation to resign from the party due to Boris' actions - though, no one can honestly say that they are surprised by any of the scandals. I do appreciate that sometimes parties change and leave their members behind, or sometimes individuals change. But surely the time for such Tories to go was 2019, with the rest of the 'moderates'.
Look, as Labour member myself, I'm happy with anything that weakens the Tories and helps make Labour look more credible to voters. But I am worried about the idea of current Tory MPs joining that party. Either they are doing this purely for career reasons and have no fixed values, or Starmer is convincing them that his Labour party won't conflict with Conservative values.
I still think it’s because most people sit centrally politically. Sometimes more to the right, and other times to the left. If they feel that the centre left is more centre than the supposed centre right party, then they’ll defect.
Okay how about we now have a GE no one wins majority and Labour form a coalition with the Lib Dems? Then they actually start to do some stuff that is good for the country?
No referendum. Please god, just stop asking the people.
Referendums are just plain bad.
It is a weapon of division, and allows media to whip up a war.
Besides, I doubt a large proportion of this country even understands PR.
>Besides, I doubt a large proportion of this country even understands PR.
Correct.
I campaigned for the AV and the number of people who couldn't understand it was phenomenal. Even explaining like I was talking to a 5-year-old, didn't seem to help with anyone 50+
We could have had that system years ago and Johnson wouldn't be where he is today.
> it would have prevented PR ever being on the table again.
That is complete rubbish. And the sort of nonsense that was used to sway people to stick with FPTP - and look how that is going.
In what way is it rubbish. AV wins and whenever anyone mentions PR all that gets thrown back is “but you chose AV over FPTP”.
I want nothing more that PR, and that is exactly why I voted against AV. I want a chance to vote for PR.
Edit: you appear to have blocked me after replying so I can’t read it.
It's rubbish because it's something made up in your own head.
No one of consequence has ever said if AV won, PR wouldn't get a look in. And also, AV lost, where is PR? No closer than before. So it was a BS argument to stifle the AV vote, and morons pushed it and it worked.
We are stuck with FPTP and our only shot at removing it was killed off with your nonsense.
You can use the [archived version link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/six-tory-mps-ready-to-defect-as-rebels-say-we-cant-wait-a-year-l60z9z30r) in the [stickied comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/vkr1ck/six_tory_mps_ready_to_defect_as_rebels_say_we/idqrvuk/) ↑
> At least half a dozen Tory MPs are talking about defecting to Labour, according to insiders in Sir Keir Starmer’s party. Westminster was full of speculation that a defection could take place at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago. While it did not happen, the recent by-elections are thought to be a new trigger.
> While many of the MPs have been considering their options for some time, at least one new person has contacted a Labour official since the by-elections to open up a channel of communication. A source said: “They will need to move quickly, because the party is lining up candidates to run against them at the next general election.”
What are you doing Labour?
Make them form their own breakaway party ffs and apply to merge with the Lib Dems in the normal way. Sociopathic Democide party? Something like that.
A major selling point of a defection for the MP involved is that they have a seat they might be able to keep with their new party's help. Else it's usually better to stay put - we all saw how TIG etc went.
And defections are very useful politically. They get attention, they send the message of a damaged government and they reduce the working majority of the government.
So yeah, it's a good thing they're talking if you like the idea of the Tories not being in power. Defectors are never going to be your favourite politician, but coalitions the can weild power often need to be diverse.
They are also a good tool to cart around whenever labour want to push a policy that will get a lot of pushback from their opponents, “see even Cretin McDipshit agrees we should seize the means of production and he used to be a Tory”. Etc…
In a generic marginal situation, as a matter of expedience, this would be arguable.
As things are, potential defectors are desperate and the Tory inability to shed Johnson, while it lasts, is an electoral plus for opposition parties.
Additionally, Labour have invested significant political capital in declaiming the very evident moral bankruptcy of the Tories - entirely justifiably when you consider the legislation they've voted for and the behaviour they've so far tolerated.
Maybe a single Damascene conversion is plausible in a lone Tory. Six craven career de-toileting conversions are not, and accepting multiple defectors like this would weaken the virtuous stance Labour have taken.
Labour can afford to be cool and aloof while their political opponents stew ever hotter in their own fetid juices.
It depends on what your viewpoint is, I think.
If you're an MP and do genuinely want to do what's best for your constituents, an argument could be made that they recognize that serving their constituents is no longer possible under the Conservatives.
Of course, they should have come to this conclusion some time ago.
It would make me nervous.
They win the seat from Labour. Labour have a slim majority, what's to stop them using the threat of defecting back to get what they want? It would give them enormous power. Going independent would be much more sensible
Bird in the hand, two in the bush.
You're not wrong, although if someone defected parties twice they'd probably not be long for their seat: parties really don't like it when people leave and if you upset both sets of voters you're likely just going to get deselected.
Moreover though, in this situation an incumbent switching MP is going to have roots in the constituency, name recognition and advantages that generally make winning the seat easier. Not only that but you probably have to spend less resources and your opponents will need to spend more to make it competitive. So you're freeing up limited resources to be spent elsewhere and making your opponent need to invest more than they planned for in what will be a close fought thing.
This sort of action is about gaining power, and winning elections as much as anything. It probably will be less ideal if power is won, but make it more likely to get there. You at least want to be having the conversations.
If you're alluding to the SDP the formation of the SDP was apparently the idea of Liberals (specifically David Steel), as he believed it would create a bigger, longer lasting, news story/event. It certainly worked back then but arguably recent attempts to form breakaway parties haven't done well so probably wouldn't work now either.
Why should labour accept them? Wouldn’t these constituencies have folks who have dedicated their lives to campaigning for labour issues who’d make better labour MPs?
They’ve already demonstrated an ability to win in those constituencies. Labour gets to humiliate Conservatives more, lean into even his own MPs dont think Boris is right person for the job, and have incumbency/ name recognition bonus if the defecting MPs have been good local MPs.
Why should Labour refuse unless one of the defecting MP is personally odious (no voting record doesn’t count - they voted with Tory whip as Tory MPs, they’ll vote with Labour whip as Labour MPs)?
> They’ve already demonstrated an ability to win in those constituencies
Very few MPs would win their seat without their party affiliation.
I suspect these MPs (if real) are not among the ones who could rely on their name alone, and are more likely to be in so-called 'Red Wall' constituencies and have won their seats unexpectedly.
Really?
I mean.....Labour are quite literally winning over Tories, which in turn shows that they'll easily be winning over Tory voters.
What's the problem? seriously?
What makes you think a person selected and campaigned for by the Tory party, and probably with a voting record to match, is automatically fit to be a Labour MP?
Their recently having decided to try and rescue their careers by switching parties shouldn't be an acceptable answer, IMO.
Is there anywhere you'd draw the line? Francois? Bridgen? Johnson himself?
>What makes you think a person selected and campaigned for by the Tory party, and probably with a voting record to match, is automatically fit to be a Labour MP?
The problem with thinking of it like that is you could easily rephrase it to be - 'What makes you think a person who's voted for the Tories, and probably with political views to match, is fit to become a Labour voter?' and therein is the problem.
Conservatives aren't non-human. And people still can't explain why in the past Tories haven't crossed over to a party where it's voters call them all sorts...etc, says they're not needed, 'stick to voting Tory' etc etc.
Nope, I wouldn't draw the line with anyone. Because it's important to actually have respect for people beyond political lines, and the problem with Corbyn's Labour is that they never had it, but Corbyn himself was massively divisive.
To get into power Labour need to be seen as tolerable and safe for Tory voters, and Tory MPs crossing over with comfort would be a great sign.
> The problem with thinking of it like that is you could easily rephrase it to be - 'What makes you think a person who's voted for the Tories, and probably with political views to match, is fit to become a Labour voter?' and therein is the problem.
Seriously? Unlike voters MPs are trusted to run the country day-to-day and are expected to meet certain standards of integrity.
That Tories and in particular Johnson don't meet those standards has been a central plank of Labour's campaign over the past several months.
Labour need to be better than that. Just crossing onto the opposition benches does not erase history. Grant Shapps would still be a shady pseudonymous get-rich-quick merchant who repeatedly lied about it, even if he were sullying Labour's name on their front benches.
Perhaps if Johnson just changed his party to be called "New Labour" and carried on as normal that would be enough for you to vote for them? Or is there something beyond the party's name that makes them worth supporting?
You both have a point tbh. The modern Tory party is so toxic that accepting members looking to save their own seats could be a poisoned chalice, especially when they seem to be red wall nutters leaving out of self-interest rather than one nation types out of principle. Equally when you’re fighting a political war, every soldier you can turn to your side is useful. It means not having to spend as much in those seats etc.
This will be a tricky calculus.
> The promises of peerages. The Russian money. They can credibly expose a lot of wrongdoing.
You should ask why, if they can do these things, they haven't already done them.
Labour's position is that integrity and honour in politics *should mean something.*
> a person selected and campaigned for by the Tory party, and probably with a voting record to match, is automatically fit to be a Labour MP?
There's a thin line somedays between the Torys and the Torylites, sorry NuLabour - this brings some poltical clout and more embarassment for BoJo - I suspect some Torys espeically ones in old Labour seats may be OK as New Labour reps in the eyes of the party - be interesting if if did happen but it's likely stamping of feet and words being thrown, they won't do anything
Oh... This is something Labour have done? My bad. I thought it was Boarish being shit. So they're moving to Labour to approve of him from across the house (increasing the percentage of Labour MPs who approve of Boarish)?
All I'm saying is that it would take a hell of a lot of very obvious work for someone to make me change my entire political outlook. I can agree with arguments without doing so, but agreeing on points and then emphasising on those is not the same as changing. Likewise disagreeing with one person I'm politically aligned with won't do shit to change my political position either. This morning I was very enthusiastically agreeing with Julia Hartley Brewer in opposition to the development on abortion in the US. That's not weird or an indication of change. It just means someone who I disagree with on one thing is someone I agree with on an entirely different thing. I've also agreed emphatically with Nigel Farage on the topic of electoral reform, and on direct democracy. It hasn't made me less of a lefty. I didn't toss all my braincells into the brexit drainage bank
But idk... If you dangle power, or the likelihood of losing it, in front of me, I'll say whatever you tell me to, rather than anything the people I claim to represent tell me to. That doesn't make me any more honest, only whose dishonesty it is that I spread
...and yet they'll do it now?
How much shit is too much? Oh right, yes, it's the moment when it shows the captain missed the iceberg so decided to take a massive tin opener to the hull to make sure.
Not the part when he fell overboard because he was too pissed to tell where the deck was. Nor the part where he 'helped' the cleaners by greasing all the floors. or the part where he found out the band took requests so the orchestra were playing Baby Shark all night....
>This is something Labour have done?
Defections to a Corbyn led Labour would never ever have happened from a Conservative, so it is.
It's a symbolic indication of the flow of how things are politically - if Tory MPs can quite comfortably come over to Labour, Tory voters will be coming over as well. Doesn't seem controversial to me.
I'd say that I'm somewhere within a fair proximity to Noam Chomsky in terms of politics. If it turned out that he was a gigantic racist, I might not state him as the example for where I am, but it absolutely wouldn't make me move. He's still be the same, I'd still be the same. I'd just pick someone else to use as a signpost. Like idk.. Zach de la Rocha. Which also doesn't really imply the two are the same or similar, just in relative political proximity.
If both turned out to be massive racists, I'm not going to grab my Ayn Rand bible and preach from the ancap gospel. While there's actually a freakish amount that I have politically in common with ancaps, the differences are pretty fundamental, and I'd [rather be shaking hands from across the way over that which unites rather than pretending that which divides doesn't exist](https://youtu.be/UGKmKDedsQg). That which divides being the belief that something inherently hierarchical (capitalism) can be even remotely anarchist (rejection of involuntary hierarchy).
Labour is defined as a democratic socialist party (see clause IV). I'm just not seeing how someone who is a staunch Tory, enough to be selected as a candidate and voted for by people of a right wing conservative mindset has suddenly overnight decided they believe in democratic socialism.
I'm not saying they haven't, I'm just leaning rather hard on the X button. Perhaps someone should ask what they believe. After all, politics is about closely-held beliefs and a passion for making the world better... It's not a football game where you just change shirts if the other team is performing (and paying) better
It's also funny you mention a Corbyn led Labour Party versus a Starmer led one. The membership, the policies, the voters, the majority of the MPs and pretty much everyone *but* the leader are the same exact people
And it comes back again to what makes a good politician, in my opinion. A good politician is one who can hold tight to their own principles and values, and make the arguments to sell those principles and values to others, including those who don't necessarily share them. I consider Caroline Lucas to be one example of a good politician. She's not really bringing many people to the Greens, per se, but she nearly always makes a very well thought out and balanced argument, that's quite hard for even her staunchest opponents to disagree with. That increases her popularity, and she commands a lot of cross-party respect. I'm not sure the Greens would have Brighton without her, but with her, green policies are incredibly well sold down there, and they might keep the seat long after she's left it.
Basically she didn't adjust any of her principles or values, she just made sure she presented them well and convinced people why her values were good values.
Labour needs to keep its credibility and **not** accept these defectors. Look at their voting history. Do you want that thrown back in your face. The Tories have consistently not done the right thing. There is not a cat in hell's chance I would vote for an ex-Tory MP knowing what legislation has been put through because of these.
The Tories are in freefall. Labour does not need this short term publicity. They need candidates who will look like they will work for their policies. A ex-Tory MP does not fit that bill.
I don't want to be right or wrong. I want to see the best options we have to remove these scumbags from office. I just see this as a stupid gamble on something that is unnecessary. I would be highly surprised if Starmer buys into a mass defection. It is hugely out of character.
He has made a huge effort to never take on policies that could be vote losers. These six will not be in Tory safe seats. I am OFC assuming they are be part of the red wall seats, which Labour knows it is getting back anyways. They could field a dead hamster, and still win against the Tories ATM in red wall seats.
The labour party was pronounced dead and buried two years ago. A tory mp defecting to Labour will detoxify the party to tory voters. That and the embarrassment it causes to the tories
Where is the benefit of "detoxifying" the Tories. Ideally you want them to sound as far from acceptable as possible. If you are accept a small portion, then it makes it sound as if some are good. Then maybe others are also good.
I stand by the first statement that Labour has nothing to gain from this.
This sub seems to completely forget this. Like there's some magical left wing landslide incoming if only labour went full force socialist and took the moral high ground by fucking off defectors. No shades of grey, it's black and white to many.
That really depends on the area they are from. If it is previous Red Wall areas then the Tories are less likely to con people a second time around. Johnson stole the vote in those areas by false promises of a utopian society which promoted Brexit values. These are not hard line Tories that have an allegiance to the party. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who reads a manifesto in those areas.
Reddit in particular, sees a lot of noise from people stating just how much of a disaster Brexit is. You never see anyone stating that they did not vote for Brexit, and now they realise they were wrong. The Brexit movement is regressive.
Johnson has attacked everything that means something to the people in those areas. Workers rights have been thrown aside with distain. The NHS is crumbling. The Levelling up is just a joke. And the silliest one is how much of a disparity there is in the law between those who have, and those who have not. Not having equality in the law is oppression.
The Tories were immensely stupid to have ignored this one. MPs previously have resigned as soon as the jig is up, and they cannot deny an event. Johnson's antics have made people look for what they are loosing out on. While recognising the nothingness they are getting in return.
Or we could try and reverse the decline in turnover and get non voters back to voting.
I wonder if that has anything to do with the narrowing of the Overton window over the years
When tory voters see the labour party as a party worthy to be voted for and not toxic as it was in 2019 half the job is done.
That's how you win elections.
It is very difficult for opposition to convince the electorate that they are a better option. People hate change. The status quo is always the preferred option. I think this battle has already been won.
Starmer won't start on policy delivering just yet though. I keep seeing people shouting up about things Labour should be in favour of. They have little to nothing to gain by spouting policies until an election. Policies set in stone now may change in the next two years due to unforeseen circumstances.
So why would they switch?
You are making them switch, while letting them know they will be deselected next time out. The only reason they are switching is because they see themselves as untenable under the Tories party flag. If they are not guaranteed selection at the next GE, then they would be more sensible to go independent or stay Tory.
That is the danger. Anyone going up against these as candidates at the next election will hammer that fact home. It is a silly risk with very short term gains.
The 6 tory mps need consult the people they represent before they they thinking of defecting the last tory was mr Wakefield I don't know his first name
I think that even if the sitting Tory defects to Labour say, the Labour Party rules would need to still run a selection of which he/she would be part of but there is no guarantee that he/she would be voted to carry on, he/she would be an electoral liability at an election as people wouldn’t trust him/her…
Snapshot of _Six Tory MPs ready to defect as rebels say: ‘We can’t wait a year’_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/six-tory-mps-ready-to-defect-as-rebels-say-we-cant-wait-a-year-l60z9z30r) *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.*
I’d guess they’re all ‘Red Wall’ who know they’re gonna lose their seats next election.
>I’d guess they’re all ‘Red Wall’ Seems likely but it might be 1 or 2 marginals in the South also. Edit- if Amber Rudd hadn't stood down as an MP no doubt she'd be one of them. She had a majority of 346 in 2017...
That's surprising, she's fairly moderate as Tories go. Even quite liberal at times. I suppose the Windrush scandal is unforgivable for many though.
I thought she'd taken the bullet for Theresa May? I wonder how that's working out for her
The career ender for her wasn't that, but standing up to BoJo for the illegal early prorogation of parliament and the removal of MP whips, which to be fair she deserves credit for.
Think it's to do with Windrush. Hastings & Rye is LAB-CON swing seat and seems to follow the national trend. The current Tory MP won a reasonable majority in 2019.
If the red wall mps stop listening to the whip the government will potentially face large rebellions on most issues.
Wouldn’t rule out a Southern MP defecting to the Lib Dems
Seems very likely
Less talk, more action.
🎵🎵All this aggravation ain't satisfactioning me \ A little more bite and a little less bark... 🎵🎵
[Get on with it!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXE8LdXzeHM)
I mean even if they defect, they should be deselected at the next opportunity. Use them as needed, but if they had to go this far down the rabbit hole for them to turn then dump them at the next opportunity. Fuck them.
[удалено]
I don't take it as rude to be honest, that's a coming home from the pub and ridiculously principled statement. If the defections are the likes of the Christian Wakefords of this world I'm grand with it. Defections are very obviously valuable. My point was more that defections of rats from a sinking ship could also be harmful to the credibility of your position, particularly if they have vocally gone to bat defending the incumbent government. Anyone that has gone this far I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, and I wouldn't be too upset if their political careers came to an end at the next election.
There are democratic positives in allowing defections. The British parliamentary system is already heavily controlled by the party whips and people's representatives often act more in the central party's interests rather than the local or national one. An MP willing to nuke their career & friendships is not doing so likely. This helps our MPs have some independence from the government and keep it more accountable. If we get too angry with defections and demand a by-election, it would return power to the party whips and ultimately the Prime Minister. Which is less democratic.
I can't entirely agree with this analysis. If the MP is willing to deflect, it usually means they're worried about losing their seat in the next election. It's pure self-preservation. They are not acting in the interests of their constituents or country. Wouldn't it make more sense to let the rats go down with the sinking ship and allow a devoted, local Labour party member to take up the reigns? Otherwise, you're infesting the party with Thatcherites.
If you're only focused on winning you might as well be voting Tory to begin with. No need for MPs with zero integrity. Edit: wow a lot of desperate people in here
I don't mean to be rude, but that is just incredibly naive
Oh no, someone wants some level of integrity in the candidates they're being asked to vote for rather than prioritising winning at all costs.
If 12 years of Tory rule isn't enough for some people to be able to accept compromise then i suppose nothing is. It would be noble if it weren't so ultimately damaging
Compromise is fine. Using exactly the same scumbags to run the country is just swapping a hat. We need a party to remain shit enough for long enough for voters to actually put some effort into voting. Absorbing some asshole MPs that helped orchestrate this bullshit just reinforces the narrative that 'they're all the same'
Less than a dozen ex tory MPs out of the around 330 MPs in a theoretical future Labour majority government is hardly "exactly the same scumbags" running the country. Engage your brain a little bit man. EDIT: I'll post my reply to the guy below me here since he's used reddit's very cool and sane blocking mechanism to stop me from continuing our conversation: >Okay, no need to start being childish and insulting. What child tells people to "engage your brain"? Young Sheldon? >And since it's 'only 6 mps', why do you care about them so much to begin with? I would say the people against defections seem to care much more, but that's my subjective experience so YMMV. If you can't see how multiple defections are damaging to the Torys idk what to tell you. >The conservatives will go down with or without them defecting. This is absolutely in no way guaranteed, boarding on palpable arrogance.
Okay, no need to start being childish and insulting. Yes, we're talking about 6 MPs. Principles apply to a much wider approach in selection of MPs though. Standards are important. Don't give them any truth to the 'all the same' argument. It's far more damaging in the long term. And since it's 'only 6 mps', why do you care about them so much to begin with? The conservatives will go down with or without them defecting.
You can want that all you like but it's not on the menu, and if you refuse to condone anything less you will be left with something even worse.
You're desperate. The conservative party is getting rightly pounded for their shitshow over the past few years. We don't need to claw every possible advantage off them.
There's a definite move towards that - I understand you have to win to get anything done, but if Nigel Farage or George Galloway were sitting MPs I wouldn't want them anywhere near Labour either.
There's some level of integrity and there's so much INTEGRITY VIRTUE SIGNALLING that you know you're never going to win and would rather just sit waving your integrity dick around for everyone to see rather than do something constructive and change things for the better. There are options between 0 and 100.
Spare me your edgy comments
MPs are individually pretty pointless anyway. They almost never vote against their party because it is political suicide to do so. They compromise their principles everyday because the system is set up in such a way that you can't act on them. Who they are as individuals is almost irrelevant on the big issues. The only thing it matters in is that they might speak up and advocate for certain things when possible, but when vote time comes around they won't vote with their principles 99.9% of the time if it means going against the whips. I don't understand why they can't have anonymous ballots tbh. The government could still count on their MPs to vote with them on most issues, because they'll more often than not take the party line out of underlying beliefs. It would stop the out and out bullying and bribery of the whips meaning legislation gets pushed through even when it's unpopular amongst their own side though. Also, unpopular PMs like Boris would have a much bigger problem on their hands, whereas at the moment his majority is so significant he still doesn't have to worry much about getting legislation through even with the backbench openly rebelling in a very public way. I'm sure someone will come along and tell me why this would be unworkable and the breakdown of our democracy. And there's probably good arguments against it. But I really hate the fact that MPs campaign as individuals, and one of the arguments for FPTP is that voters vote for the MP rather than the party. When actually the MP is nothing more than a party drone, whatever lofty ideals they start off with. It must also be quite disillusioning for a lot of MPs who think they can make a difference to realise that actually, your personal views don't matter at all.
>MPs are individually pretty pointless anyway. They almost never vote against their party because it is political suicide to do so. No, scummy MPs with no integrity almost never vote against their party. These ones are rats off a sinking ship, and cannot be trust to actually do anything for the good of the community. > They compromise their principles everyday because the system is set up in such a way that you can't act on them. Some do. Like these ones. That's precisely why no other party should accept them. >Who they are as individuals is almost irrelevant on the big issues. I don't think that's true. Striving for a democracy where we elect decent people to represent us is a solid goal, and pays off in the long run. > but when vote time comes around they won't vote with their principles 99.9% of the time if it means going against the whips. Because you're voting in scumbags with no integrity or principles. They're just there to follow the party narrative and collect their salary. >I don't understand why they can't have anonymous ballots tbh. An interesting idea. Though I think the downside would be more than the upside. It's important for the public to see how their MP is representing their views in action. We have the tools to get a government that doesn't rely on this whip nonsense. It's up to the voters to vote for it. Currently they don't, and the UK has the government it deserves.
It's not currently an option within the system though. I'm not advocating for the status quo, I find a lack of integrity as repulsive as you do. What I do believe though, is that our current system selects for a lack of integrity, as noone else makes it in through the door, or very quickly has it knocked from them once they do. It is really naive to cling to an impossible ideal at the expense of a realistic compromise. To have a chance of fixing the system then someone other than the Tories first has to win a general election. There's really no point crying out against the system and spiting yourself into irrelevance if you can compromise some lofty ideals for the greater good. That's politics and the world in general. I'm sorry that it is that way, but it is, and it won't change overnight.
> What I do believe though, is that our current system selects for a lack of integrity, Ultimately this comes down to voters. Voters are selecting for a lack of integrity. You can even see it in this comment section, that people who hate the current government are entirely ready to keep supporting zero integrity MPs if they feel it gives them any better hope at a 'win'. >It is really naive to cling to an impossible ideal You claim it's impossible. I very much disagree. The Tories are taking a huge hit given the current trajectory. No party should be so desperate as to need to take in these assholes that these MPs are.
Uh huh huh.
My own MP, Simon Fell (Barrow-in-Furness, red wall seat), was in the local Royal Mail office on Saturday doing a supporting the workers/man of the people act. He's already criticised Johnson in the past. I wonder if he was one of the 6?
I wonder if watching more Tory MPs go to Labour would make it more appealing for voters who haven't already switched to do so? Not a big fan of it, but happy for politics to be played if it results in a Labour GE victory.
As long as the MPs vote for the more centre/ left wing policies and not just continue voting along the Tory lines while being "Labour". E.g. voting against free school meals if Labour propose it again just because the Tories are all voting against it.
I do share your concern but if they defect with a reasonable amount of time before the next GE then I think we'll see fairly quickly with how they vote under Labour. Presumably they'll be on thin ice from the start, if they vote against Labour motions on things like free school meals while in opposition I imagine they won't be kept as a Labour candidate in an election. It's also worth noting that the reason for a lot of their votes may just be that they're having to vote with the Tory whip, it's something they pretty much have to do as back benchers if they want a chance at getting to a more influential position in the future. I'm not excusing them but it's just reality of politics.
I find it really hard to understand the mental gymnastics that someone would have to go through to be a Tory candidate in 2019 under Boris' 'Get Brexit Done' agenda, and then 2.5 years later decide that they actually belong in the Labour party. I can understand why you might feel a moral obligation to resign from the party due to Boris' actions - though, no one can honestly say that they are surprised by any of the scandals. I do appreciate that sometimes parties change and leave their members behind, or sometimes individuals change. But surely the time for such Tories to go was 2019, with the rest of the 'moderates'. Look, as Labour member myself, I'm happy with anything that weakens the Tories and helps make Labour look more credible to voters. But I am worried about the idea of current Tory MPs joining that party. Either they are doing this purely for career reasons and have no fixed values, or Starmer is convincing them that his Labour party won't conflict with Conservative values.
The mental gymnastics are “which party is going to give me the best chance of retaining my MP salary after the next general election”.
I still think it’s because most people sit centrally politically. Sometimes more to the right, and other times to the left. If they feel that the centre left is more centre than the supposed centre right party, then they’ll defect.
Okay how about we now have a GE no one wins majority and Labour form a coalition with the Lib Dems? Then they actually start to do some stuff that is good for the country?
I think the Lib Dems would support a Lab govt on a case by case basis if it came short of a majority. I doubt they'd go for a full coalition again.
[удалено]
As a lib dem supporter this is a red line for me. Nothing formal without PR, simple as that.
No referendum. Please god, just stop asking the people. Referendums are just plain bad. It is a weapon of division, and allows media to whip up a war. Besides, I doubt a large proportion of this country even understands PR.
>Besides, I doubt a large proportion of this country even understands PR. Correct. I campaigned for the AV and the number of people who couldn't understand it was phenomenal. Even explaining like I was talking to a 5-year-old, didn't seem to help with anyone 50+ We could have had that system years ago and Johnson wouldn't be where he is today.
The problem with the AV vote is that it it had been successful it would have prevented PR ever being on the table again.
> it would have prevented PR ever being on the table again. That is complete rubbish. And the sort of nonsense that was used to sway people to stick with FPTP - and look how that is going.
In what way is it rubbish. AV wins and whenever anyone mentions PR all that gets thrown back is “but you chose AV over FPTP”. I want nothing more that PR, and that is exactly why I voted against AV. I want a chance to vote for PR. Edit: you appear to have blocked me after replying so I can’t read it.
It's rubbish because it's something made up in your own head. No one of consequence has ever said if AV won, PR wouldn't get a look in. And also, AV lost, where is PR? No closer than before. So it was a BS argument to stifle the AV vote, and morons pushed it and it worked. We are stuck with FPTP and our only shot at removing it was killed off with your nonsense.
That would be reason enough for me.
Some of the Lib Dems' policies are actually to the left of Labour's so it might work out well.
No paywall: https://archive.ph/97XT9
Good idea. Christian wakeford is reaping the rewards now.
Excellent. Labour should welcome more tory defections.
[удалено]
You can use the [archived version link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/six-tory-mps-ready-to-defect-as-rebels-say-we-cant-wait-a-year-l60z9z30r) in the [stickied comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/vkr1ck/six_tory_mps_ready_to_defect_as_rebels_say_we/idqrvuk/) ↑
I'm not sure six Tory MPs defecting to Labour is going to help dispel the "they're all the same" myth.
They are not the same because to defect is to suggest the other party is better
> At least half a dozen Tory MPs are talking about defecting to Labour, according to insiders in Sir Keir Starmer’s party. Westminster was full of speculation that a defection could take place at prime minister’s questions two weeks ago. While it did not happen, the recent by-elections are thought to be a new trigger. > While many of the MPs have been considering their options for some time, at least one new person has contacted a Labour official since the by-elections to open up a channel of communication. A source said: “They will need to move quickly, because the party is lining up candidates to run against them at the next general election.” What are you doing Labour? Make them form their own breakaway party ffs and apply to merge with the Lib Dems in the normal way. Sociopathic Democide party? Something like that.
A major selling point of a defection for the MP involved is that they have a seat they might be able to keep with their new party's help. Else it's usually better to stay put - we all saw how TIG etc went. And defections are very useful politically. They get attention, they send the message of a damaged government and they reduce the working majority of the government. So yeah, it's a good thing they're talking if you like the idea of the Tories not being in power. Defectors are never going to be your favourite politician, but coalitions the can weild power often need to be diverse.
They are also a good tool to cart around whenever labour want to push a policy that will get a lot of pushback from their opponents, “see even Cretin McDipshit agrees we should seize the means of production and he used to be a Tory”. Etc…
In a generic marginal situation, as a matter of expedience, this would be arguable. As things are, potential defectors are desperate and the Tory inability to shed Johnson, while it lasts, is an electoral plus for opposition parties. Additionally, Labour have invested significant political capital in declaiming the very evident moral bankruptcy of the Tories - entirely justifiably when you consider the legislation they've voted for and the behaviour they've so far tolerated. Maybe a single Damascene conversion is plausible in a lone Tory. Six craven career de-toileting conversions are not, and accepting multiple defectors like this would weaken the virtuous stance Labour have taken. Labour can afford to be cool and aloof while their political opponents stew ever hotter in their own fetid juices.
It depends on what your viewpoint is, I think. If you're an MP and do genuinely want to do what's best for your constituents, an argument could be made that they recognize that serving their constituents is no longer possible under the Conservatives. Of course, they should have come to this conclusion some time ago.
It would make me nervous. They win the seat from Labour. Labour have a slim majority, what's to stop them using the threat of defecting back to get what they want? It would give them enormous power. Going independent would be much more sensible
Bird in the hand, two in the bush. You're not wrong, although if someone defected parties twice they'd probably not be long for their seat: parties really don't like it when people leave and if you upset both sets of voters you're likely just going to get deselected. Moreover though, in this situation an incumbent switching MP is going to have roots in the constituency, name recognition and advantages that generally make winning the seat easier. Not only that but you probably have to spend less resources and your opponents will need to spend more to make it competitive. So you're freeing up limited resources to be spent elsewhere and making your opponent need to invest more than they planned for in what will be a close fought thing. This sort of action is about gaining power, and winning elections as much as anything. It probably will be less ideal if power is won, but make it more likely to get there. You at least want to be having the conversations.
If you're alluding to the SDP the formation of the SDP was apparently the idea of Liberals (specifically David Steel), as he believed it would create a bigger, longer lasting, news story/event. It certainly worked back then but arguably recent attempts to form breakaway parties haven't done well so probably wouldn't work now either.
[удалено]
Yes because you need tory voters to win an election
Yes please.
Why should labour accept them? Wouldn’t these constituencies have folks who have dedicated their lives to campaigning for labour issues who’d make better labour MPs?
They’ve already demonstrated an ability to win in those constituencies. Labour gets to humiliate Conservatives more, lean into even his own MPs dont think Boris is right person for the job, and have incumbency/ name recognition bonus if the defecting MPs have been good local MPs. Why should Labour refuse unless one of the defecting MP is personally odious (no voting record doesn’t count - they voted with Tory whip as Tory MPs, they’ll vote with Labour whip as Labour MPs)?
> They’ve already demonstrated an ability to win in those constituencies Very few MPs would win their seat without their party affiliation. I suspect these MPs (if real) are not among the ones who could rely on their name alone, and are more likely to be in so-called 'Red Wall' constituencies and have won their seats unexpectedly.
They coulddefe t to LibDems
I’m assuming they’re northern MPs since they’re apparently looking at Labour, southern ones (if they defected) would probably go to lib dems.
Doesn't Labour have enough tories in it already?
Really? I mean.....Labour are quite literally winning over Tories, which in turn shows that they'll easily be winning over Tory voters. What's the problem? seriously?
What makes you think a person selected and campaigned for by the Tory party, and probably with a voting record to match, is automatically fit to be a Labour MP? Their recently having decided to try and rescue their careers by switching parties shouldn't be an acceptable answer, IMO. Is there anywhere you'd draw the line? Francois? Bridgen? Johnson himself?
>What makes you think a person selected and campaigned for by the Tory party, and probably with a voting record to match, is automatically fit to be a Labour MP? The problem with thinking of it like that is you could easily rephrase it to be - 'What makes you think a person who's voted for the Tories, and probably with political views to match, is fit to become a Labour voter?' and therein is the problem. Conservatives aren't non-human. And people still can't explain why in the past Tories haven't crossed over to a party where it's voters call them all sorts...etc, says they're not needed, 'stick to voting Tory' etc etc. Nope, I wouldn't draw the line with anyone. Because it's important to actually have respect for people beyond political lines, and the problem with Corbyn's Labour is that they never had it, but Corbyn himself was massively divisive. To get into power Labour need to be seen as tolerable and safe for Tory voters, and Tory MPs crossing over with comfort would be a great sign.
> The problem with thinking of it like that is you could easily rephrase it to be - 'What makes you think a person who's voted for the Tories, and probably with political views to match, is fit to become a Labour voter?' and therein is the problem. Seriously? Unlike voters MPs are trusted to run the country day-to-day and are expected to meet certain standards of integrity. That Tories and in particular Johnson don't meet those standards has been a central plank of Labour's campaign over the past several months. Labour need to be better than that. Just crossing onto the opposition benches does not erase history. Grant Shapps would still be a shady pseudonymous get-rich-quick merchant who repeatedly lied about it, even if he were sullying Labour's name on their front benches. Perhaps if Johnson just changed his party to be called "New Labour" and carried on as normal that would be enough for you to vote for them? Or is there something beyond the party's name that makes them worth supporting?
You both have a point tbh. The modern Tory party is so toxic that accepting members looking to save their own seats could be a poisoned chalice, especially when they seem to be red wall nutters leaving out of self-interest rather than one nation types out of principle. Equally when you’re fighting a political war, every soldier you can turn to your side is useful. It means not having to spend as much in those seats etc. This will be a tricky calculus.
[удалено]
> The promises of peerages. The Russian money. They can credibly expose a lot of wrongdoing. You should ask why, if they can do these things, they haven't already done them. Labour's position is that integrity and honour in politics *should mean something.*
[удалено]
I mean, have you *seen* the 2019 red wall Tories?
Exactly
> a person selected and campaigned for by the Tory party, and probably with a voting record to match, is automatically fit to be a Labour MP? There's a thin line somedays between the Torys and the Torylites, sorry NuLabour - this brings some poltical clout and more embarassment for BoJo - I suspect some Torys espeically ones in old Labour seats may be OK as New Labour reps in the eyes of the party - be interesting if if did happen but it's likely stamping of feet and words being thrown, they won't do anything
Oh... This is something Labour have done? My bad. I thought it was Boarish being shit. So they're moving to Labour to approve of him from across the house (increasing the percentage of Labour MPs who approve of Boarish)? All I'm saying is that it would take a hell of a lot of very obvious work for someone to make me change my entire political outlook. I can agree with arguments without doing so, but agreeing on points and then emphasising on those is not the same as changing. Likewise disagreeing with one person I'm politically aligned with won't do shit to change my political position either. This morning I was very enthusiastically agreeing with Julia Hartley Brewer in opposition to the development on abortion in the US. That's not weird or an indication of change. It just means someone who I disagree with on one thing is someone I agree with on an entirely different thing. I've also agreed emphatically with Nigel Farage on the topic of electoral reform, and on direct democracy. It hasn't made me less of a lefty. I didn't toss all my braincells into the brexit drainage bank But idk... If you dangle power, or the likelihood of losing it, in front of me, I'll say whatever you tell me to, rather than anything the people I claim to represent tell me to. That doesn't make me any more honest, only whose dishonesty it is that I spread
[удалено]
If proroguing parliament wasn't the straw...
[удалено]
...and yet they'll do it now? How much shit is too much? Oh right, yes, it's the moment when it shows the captain missed the iceberg so decided to take a massive tin opener to the hull to make sure. Not the part when he fell overboard because he was too pissed to tell where the deck was. Nor the part where he 'helped' the cleaners by greasing all the floors. or the part where he found out the band took requests so the orchestra were playing Baby Shark all night....
>This is something Labour have done? Defections to a Corbyn led Labour would never ever have happened from a Conservative, so it is. It's a symbolic indication of the flow of how things are politically - if Tory MPs can quite comfortably come over to Labour, Tory voters will be coming over as well. Doesn't seem controversial to me.
I'd say that I'm somewhere within a fair proximity to Noam Chomsky in terms of politics. If it turned out that he was a gigantic racist, I might not state him as the example for where I am, but it absolutely wouldn't make me move. He's still be the same, I'd still be the same. I'd just pick someone else to use as a signpost. Like idk.. Zach de la Rocha. Which also doesn't really imply the two are the same or similar, just in relative political proximity. If both turned out to be massive racists, I'm not going to grab my Ayn Rand bible and preach from the ancap gospel. While there's actually a freakish amount that I have politically in common with ancaps, the differences are pretty fundamental, and I'd [rather be shaking hands from across the way over that which unites rather than pretending that which divides doesn't exist](https://youtu.be/UGKmKDedsQg). That which divides being the belief that something inherently hierarchical (capitalism) can be even remotely anarchist (rejection of involuntary hierarchy). Labour is defined as a democratic socialist party (see clause IV). I'm just not seeing how someone who is a staunch Tory, enough to be selected as a candidate and voted for by people of a right wing conservative mindset has suddenly overnight decided they believe in democratic socialism. I'm not saying they haven't, I'm just leaning rather hard on the X button. Perhaps someone should ask what they believe. After all, politics is about closely-held beliefs and a passion for making the world better... It's not a football game where you just change shirts if the other team is performing (and paying) better It's also funny you mention a Corbyn led Labour Party versus a Starmer led one. The membership, the policies, the voters, the majority of the MPs and pretty much everyone *but* the leader are the same exact people And it comes back again to what makes a good politician, in my opinion. A good politician is one who can hold tight to their own principles and values, and make the arguments to sell those principles and values to others, including those who don't necessarily share them. I consider Caroline Lucas to be one example of a good politician. She's not really bringing many people to the Greens, per se, but she nearly always makes a very well thought out and balanced argument, that's quite hard for even her staunchest opponents to disagree with. That increases her popularity, and she commands a lot of cross-party respect. I'm not sure the Greens would have Brighton without her, but with her, green policies are incredibly well sold down there, and they might keep the seat long after she's left it. Basically she didn't adjust any of her principles or values, she just made sure she presented them well and convinced people why her values were good values.
Tiverton...
Labour needs to keep its credibility and **not** accept these defectors. Look at their voting history. Do you want that thrown back in your face. The Tories have consistently not done the right thing. There is not a cat in hell's chance I would vote for an ex-Tory MP knowing what legislation has been put through because of these. The Tories are in freefall. Labour does not need this short term publicity. They need candidates who will look like they will work for their policies. A ex-Tory MP does not fit that bill.
Christian wakeford is a prime example of why you are wrong
I don't want to be right or wrong. I want to see the best options we have to remove these scumbags from office. I just see this as a stupid gamble on something that is unnecessary. I would be highly surprised if Starmer buys into a mass defection. It is hugely out of character. He has made a huge effort to never take on policies that could be vote losers. These six will not be in Tory safe seats. I am OFC assuming they are be part of the red wall seats, which Labour knows it is getting back anyways. They could field a dead hamster, and still win against the Tories ATM in red wall seats.
The labour party was pronounced dead and buried two years ago. A tory mp defecting to Labour will detoxify the party to tory voters. That and the embarrassment it causes to the tories
Where is the benefit of "detoxifying" the Tories. Ideally you want them to sound as far from acceptable as possible. If you are accept a small portion, then it makes it sound as if some are good. Then maybe others are also good. I stand by the first statement that Labour has nothing to gain from this.
[удалено]
This sub seems to completely forget this. Like there's some magical left wing landslide incoming if only labour went full force socialist and took the moral high ground by fucking off defectors. No shades of grey, it's black and white to many.
That really depends on the area they are from. If it is previous Red Wall areas then the Tories are less likely to con people a second time around. Johnson stole the vote in those areas by false promises of a utopian society which promoted Brexit values. These are not hard line Tories that have an allegiance to the party. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who reads a manifesto in those areas. Reddit in particular, sees a lot of noise from people stating just how much of a disaster Brexit is. You never see anyone stating that they did not vote for Brexit, and now they realise they were wrong. The Brexit movement is regressive. Johnson has attacked everything that means something to the people in those areas. Workers rights have been thrown aside with distain. The NHS is crumbling. The Levelling up is just a joke. And the silliest one is how much of a disparity there is in the law between those who have, and those who have not. Not having equality in the law is oppression. The Tories were immensely stupid to have ignored this one. MPs previously have resigned as soon as the jig is up, and they cannot deny an event. Johnson's antics have made people look for what they are loosing out on. While recognising the nothingness they are getting in return.
Or we could try and reverse the decline in turnover and get non voters back to voting. I wonder if that has anything to do with the narrowing of the Overton window over the years
When tory voters see the labour party as a party worthy to be voted for and not toxic as it was in 2019 half the job is done. That's how you win elections.
It is very difficult for opposition to convince the electorate that they are a better option. People hate change. The status quo is always the preferred option. I think this battle has already been won. Starmer won't start on policy delivering just yet though. I keep seeing people shouting up about things Labour should be in favour of. They have little to nothing to gain by spouting policies until an election. Policies set in stone now may change in the next two years due to unforeseen circumstances.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This
So why would they switch? You are making them switch, while letting them know they will be deselected next time out. The only reason they are switching is because they see themselves as untenable under the Tories party flag. If they are not guaranteed selection at the next GE, then they would be more sensible to go independent or stay Tory.
[удалено]
That is the danger. Anyone going up against these as candidates at the next election will hammer that fact home. It is a silly risk with very short term gains.
They're spineless, not a chance
Action not words
Yesssss
The 6 tory mps need consult the people they represent before they they thinking of defecting the last tory was mr Wakefield I don't know his first name
I think that even if the sitting Tory defects to Labour say, the Labour Party rules would need to still run a selection of which he/she would be part of but there is no guarantee that he/she would be voted to carry on, he/she would be an electoral liability at an election as people wouldn’t trust him/her…
Tory MPs in labour is not what anyone who supports labour should want.