It is hard to tell whether Natalie Elphicke’s acceptance into the Parliamentary Labour Party owes more to Alice in Wonderland or to Monty Python. It has certainly injected a note of high farce into parliamentary politics. Here we have an MP, who by all the normal definitions of politics, is on the right wing of the Tory Party, being embraced by Keir Starmer’s parliamentary party.
It was predictable, and completely correct, that the left would react with outrage and on social media and on left wing websites, like this article in Labour Heartlands, for example. Elphicke’s vile record has been well documented. She is to the right of the Tory Party, among other things, on:
*Trade union rights – she is in favour or greater restrictions on trade unions
*Immigration – part of her rationale for dumping the Tories was their “failure to keep our borders safe and secure”
*On women’s rights – she defended her husband (and former Dover MP), when he was charged and later jailed for sexual offences. She was among a group of MPs suspended temporarily from the Commons for attempting to influence the trial judge.
*On Brexit – she was a member of the right-wing European Research Group
In fact, she is so far on the right of the Tory Party, that when there were rumours of her defection among Tory MPs, they thought she was going to follow that other far right renegade, Lee Anderson, into Reform UK.
But as much as the anger of the left is justified, there is little point in joining in a competition to see who can say the most damning things about Keir Starmer. He is the worst Labour leader in the Party’s history, and the decision to accept Elphicke is a disgrace: all this we know. What is a more useful exercise is for us to examine what the implications of this appalling decision might be.
A record number of Tory MPs are standing down next election
Like a rat deserting a sinking ship, Elphicke has abandoned a doomed party. She knows it, Sunak knows it and Tory MPs know it. That is why so many – a record number, now over 60 – have decided not to stand in the next election. But it is the effect of this defection on the Labour Party that most concerns us.
The likes of Peter Mandelson – a Tory in sheep’s clothing, if ever there was one – and Keir Starmer’s closest acolytes might be delighted with their new ‘capture’. But the net effect of this bizarre episode is that it further isolates Keir Starmer immediate coterie from the mass of the Labour membership, and increasingly, even from middle-of-the-road and even right-wing MPs.
“Who in their right mind”, a left MP asked, “thought this was helpful?”. But on the party right, at least two shadow cabinet members were quoted in the Guardian as also being extremely dubious about her record. “Her hard right views are a big red line. Are we welcoming Nigel Farage next week?” one of them asked.
“People are upset and angry right across the party about the decision”, a shadow minister told the Guardian. Another shadow minister said much the same thing: “Logically or politically we didn’t need this…I worry that they’ll not have done sufficient due diligence on her.”
At least one woman Labour MP has complained.
Women Labour MPs, including many on the right of the party, are particularly concerned by Elphicke joining their number, because of her past defence of her (now) ex-husband after his conviction. According the Guardian, at least one woman has written to complain to the party’s chief whip.
It has to be borne in mind that the Parliamentary Labour Party is overwhelmingly right wing, so it is coming to something that such MPs are complaining about Starmer’s decision-making. The suggestion that Starmer may have offered Elphicke a job as a ‘housing’ consultant of some kind – she is not contesting her seat in Dover at the next election – makes it even worse.
In the grander scheme of things, this farcical episode is just one more indication of a shift to the right that has been in progress for four years, ever since Starmer fraudulently won the leadership contest. But the trajectory and the speed of Starmer’s movement to the right, even embracing right-wing Tories, will do nothing to consolidate his support where it matters in the long run – within the Labour and the affiliated trade union membership. On the contrary, Starmer is increasingly isolating himself within the party.
The Trade Union and Labour Organisation, TULO, which represents affiliated unions, is aghast at the latest proposals to dilute the one Labour commitment that up to now seems to have survived largely intact. The new proposals for the New Deal for Workers, being presented to TULO next Tuesday, and which have been seen by the unions, will not go down well.
By subtle changes in language and by various caveats, some of the ‘firm’ promises have been rendered meaningless. This is not the fairy-tale politics of parliamentary games, somewhere up in the clouds. This is concrete, on-the-ground policy, and these changes will directly and dramatically affect the ability of trade unions to do their jobs. Key commitments watered down include:
*Banning ‘fire and hire’ – now qualified to allow businesses to “restructure” when there is “no viable alternative”.
*Ending zero hours contracts – now described as a right to switch to a contract that reflects the hours regularly worked.
*Giving workers full rights from day one of employment – now qualified (and made meaningless) by employers’ rights to impose a ‘probationary’ period of up to two years.
Even the right of workers to ignore e-mails and phone calls when off work – the so-called “right to switch off”, which ought to be an elementary right of any worker – has been diluted. Not surprisingly, there has been a wave of anger from trade union officers over this latest abandonment of policy. Sharon Graham of Unite has described the proposals a “unrecognisable” from what they were – which can be seen on the TULO website here. “Workers will see through this,” she said, “and mark this retreat after retreat as betrayal.”
Labour’s “New Deal” fast becoming “Labour’s New Kneel”
The leaders of the other three large affiliated unions – UNISON. GMB and USDAW – have been relatively quiet, but in private they will not be enamoured with the changes. It is not so much their own preferences and inclinations that count, but they will know that their members will not accept it, if the so-called New Deal for Workers turns into a New Kneel for Workers.
What does it mean for Labour in the longer term? Every new opinion poll that comes out seems to show a bigger projected majority for the Party in the coming election, not because Starmer has any great public support, far from it, but because the big majority of the population are fed up to the back teeth with a rotten, corrupt and incompetent government.
What the Elphicke farce represents is another nail in Starmer’s political coffin: not short term, but certainly longer term. He has isolated himself and his immediate entourage from the broader layers of the Labour and trade union membership and, we can now add, significant layers of the right wing in the PLP, and it will be all that much easier if and when there is a challenge to his leadership in the future.
The economic policy that is coming from Labour shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves is so much like the policy of Tory Chancellor Jeremy Hunt, that it has even been dubbed “Heevesian economics.” There is every likelihood – one might even say a certainty – that the central plank of a Reeves/Starmer economic policy will be public spending cuts and more austerity for workers in the public services.
Whatever the wishes of the trade union leaderships – even those on the right wing – there is no possibility that this will be acceptable to the membership. It is only a matter of time before we see an opposition to Starmer developing, firstly through the trade unions, and at Labour conferences, and then in the parliamentary party itself. Natalie Elphicke’s “defection” has moved the needle on the probability scale, making such a challenge that bit more likely sooner rather than later.
