• streetlights@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months 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
      ·
      5 months 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
      ·
      5 months 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@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months 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.