Thread by @AndrewPRLevi

While understanding the surprise (it was unexpected!) at Natalie Elphicke’s defection, I’m bemused by the shock, in some quarters, that Keir Starmer welcomed her.

No, not because Sir Keir is a “Red Tory” or a “short-term opportunist”.

His grand strategy explains it.

A 🧵/1.

Starmer’s Labour is on a mission, even if some in the party don’t yet realise, to make Labour *the* party of Britain, embedding it in government for decades.

Creating a national consensus, drawing in the widest feasible span of committed supporters. /2.

The purpose is to transform the country (more on that in a moment).

“Doing an Attlee”.

But succeeding.

(Before you raise both eyebrows, consider this: what might Attlee & his colleagues have achieved if Labour had been in power a lot longer?). /3.

You can’t do that just by attracting & retaining voters from “the centre ground”. You need many of those flirting with the extremes to join you & stick with you. /4.

MPs are a different matter from voters, of course.

Their views are public.

Voters’ views are (generally) secret: only shown to the ballot paper, in the privacy of the polling booth. /5.

Any defecting MP is vulnerable to (very obvious) political attack.

Voters can defect without embarrassment (except perhaps toward their previous selves) or personal disadvantage. /6.

Starmer needs the voters for his grand strategy to succeed.

The strategic value of a defecting MP is the signal that sends. /7.

The Elphicke defection tells voters tempted by, or actually voting for, Reform & the like that it’s OK to vote Labour.

A centrist Tory MP defecting to Labour would send a similar message to voters otherwise tempted to support the LibDems, say. /8.

Naturally, Starmer’s Great British Party strategy carries risks.

Will a particular defection backfire?

Will he lose existing supporters?

Will his political message to voters be too unclear to cut through?

Can he hold together the extraordinary coalition he’s attempting? /9.

But, contrary to his image, Sir Keir is a bold revolutionary. (I know, I know: that’s precisely my point. Look more closely. You don’t have to agree with him, but it’s best to understand him).

It would be safer just to go for a decent GE win. That isn’t his approach. /10.

Beneath the perhaps superficially bland sounding Labour Party official strategy there are in clear sight, if you care to read them, the signs of the drive to create the Great British Party & put it in power for the long term. /11.

I’ll just list the headlines here:

Strong, stable and secure foundations -

▪️The rock of economic stability

▪️Strong national defence

▪️Secure borders /12.

On these foundations, a long term plan to get Britain’s future back via five fully funded national missions -

▫️ Get Britain building again

▫️ Switch on Great British Energy

▫️ Get the NHS back on its feet

▫️ Take back our streets

▫️ Break down barriers to opportunity /13.

So, a final thought:

Which of those three “foundations” & five “national missions” do you think voters inclined to support an MP like Natalie Elphicke, or a party like Reform, would be willing to get behind, or at least consider favourably?

My answer? All of them. /14. End

P.S. It’s fair to say that @coldwarsteve takes a dim view of the signal Sir Keir is sending!