UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
Insane how people are defending this just because it harms the Tories. Do labour supporters have no principles at all?
Yes, the principle is 'Labour governments are good, do things that make Labour governments more likely.'
Think about it: the message Sunak is trying this week is: 'voting Labour will lead to chaos'. Yet another Tory MP defecting totally undermines that argument, because it paints the Conservatives, not Labour, as being out of control. That's a win for Labour.
Secondly, what has Labour's message been since Sunak took power? It's been: 'Sunak is weak'. This makes him look weak. Another win.
Sunak is convinced banging on about small boats will save him. A Tory MP quitting because he hasn't stopped the boats undermines one of the few lines he thinks works. That leaves him with nothing to say, making him again look both out of control and weak.
The downside for Labour is that Natalie Elphicke is clearly a nutter. But, that doesn't detract from any of the above. Most people have never heard of her. She's only going to be a Labour MP for a few months. So, overall it's a win for Labour.
What's the point in a LABOUR government if the party is willing to take the support of people who are proudly anti-worker? What good will it do to be a government of tories with red ties?
People have said exactly this about every Labour government, right down to the cliche about the ties. And yet, somehow, despite being Tories, all those LABOUR goverments somehow did a whole load of very Labour things! Amazing!
Maybe you're right and I hope you are, but I can't trust a 'democratic socialist' party that repeatedly turns it's back on promises to workers and allows hard right sexual assault apologists into the party
Yeah she's horrible. None of that has anything to do with policy decisions. Her being a sexual assault apologist won't make labour worse, except by the very weird "painted by association" belief that you seem to have. She's going to be an advisor not a policy maker, not a decision maker. She's going to have to work for Angela Raynor which will be hilarious.
She's not anti-worker she's pro-worker. She's a complete nutcase but she's not actually against British people like some of the Tories. They seem to think that anyone with less than six figures in their bank account should be ignored, she seems to care about British people. As long as you're not too different you're okay in her eyes.
She deserves a slightly less bad circle of hell.
My point is if you're going to criticize her, and there's a lot to criticize her about, at least criticize her actual beliefs rather than just making things up that aren't true.
It's perfect for Labour. They get to shower Rishi in shit until the general election and then quietly deselect her or move her aside for an actual candidate. Why wouldn't you?
My main worry is that she's just so mad that she might cause trouble for us even in the limited time she's going to be in the PLP. If I were in Starmer's shoes, I'd have had her sign some sort of contract promising not to speak to the press, at all, ever.
Well, if she does then Starmer can just kick her out again. He gets to have his cake and eat it that way; all of the embarrassment for Sunak of having an MP cross the floor, and the chance to performatively sack an MP that crosses a line.
Principles
Maybe its hard for the current labour party to understand that, but the party of the workers should not welcome hardcore right wingers no matter what the circumstances are
I think you've got principles and policies mixed up. What you've described is a policy.
A principle for a party of workers might be: To champion workers rights for the betterment of society.
A policy for that principle could be: to not accept right wing nutters into your party because they are inherently anti worker.
But equally another policy could be: publicly humilate incumbent anti worker government in an election cycle by accepting a defector from their party knowing full well it will be temporary because they're standing down in the next election.
In a crucial election year one policy is infinitely better than the other.
This government don't need any more humiliation, this only humiliated Labour by having a former member of the government be allowed to sit among them
That's not how the news cycle sees it. If we are to believe the left wing rhetoric that the entire media is against Labour always and forever then the media proclaiming a win for Starmer and a humiliation for Sunak speaks volumes. And that's what most of the electorate will see as well.
There are two points here, and I'm going to sidestep whether her joining Labour is a good idea and focus on the other.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with this. We have seen repeatedly that people's memories are like goldfish. You have to keep it up for an extended period to stick, otherwise we will end up with the news cycle burying positive news for boosting the Tories.
All it takes is a bad angle of a bacon sandwich, and the press vultures will completely blow up any negative thing they can to derail Labour.
This is nothing but arrogant posturing. Who put you in charge of what the party of the workers should and shouldn't do?
Because it is a direct contradiction for the party of workers to welcome people with anti worker views?
What is an 'anti worker view'?
Accusing union activists who heckled her for showing up at a protest in support of P&O workers who her government failed to support of being 'hard-left militants' might be such an example
That's not an anti worker view, it's a description, either accurate or not, of a few shouty people at a protest.
Slurs against the supporters of the organisations who won workers all their rights isn't anti worker?
How about repeatedly voting on bills to reduce the rights of workers to collectively bargain for better treatment? Or does she have to shoot striking people on the picket line for you to accept she doesn't care about labour
There you go, some actual facts! Much easier to have a conversation when we talk about those instead of grandstanding, isn't it?
I don't agree with her votes on union issues, of course. But now she's joined the party promising to reverse those, she's implicitly endorsed reversing them. I assume she voted with the Whip. Maybe she's changed her mind on that stuff, maybe not; maybe she never believed it and just did what the Whips said. I guess we'll see if and how her voting record changes now she's joined Labour.
She's also campaigned for rent controls, which puts her to the left of current Labour policy. So, where does that leave us? She's anti-worker but pro-renter? She's left of some MPs, right of some others, so... just like every MP, then?