Labour should think carefully before allowing more Tories to join

There is a maxim that a Budget that is well received on the day looks a lot less shiny a few days later after the fine print has been examined. Something similar might now be happening after the dramatic defection to Labour of the right-wing Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke.

It is easy to see why Sir Keir Starmer welcomed her with open arms, and on balance The Independent thinks he was right to do so. Her offer to jump ship was not one he could refuse, Ms Elphicke being the second Tory MP to join Labour in two weeks after Dan Poulter switched sides.

As Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, told a conference at the weekend, the pair made the same leap of faith Labour wants Tory voters to take. He said: “What better message-carrier could we have for those voters than the doctor who has concluded that only Labour can be trusted with the NHS, and the MP for Dover who has judged that only Labour has serious solutions to tackling the small boats crisis?”

However, good intentions can have unintended consequences, and many Labour backbenchers were appalled by the arrival of their strange bedfellow. Their genuine concern forced Ms Elphicke to apologise for highly insensitive remarks she had made previously about her former husband and Dover MP Charlie’s conviction for sexually assaulting two women, for which he was jailed for two years.

Now these Labour MPs are feeling vindicated after Sir Robert Buckland, the former justice secretary, accused Ms Elphicke of asking him to interfere in the trial of her ex-husband – a request he rejected as “completely inappropriate.” Ms Elphicke does not deny meeting Sir Robert, but her spokesperson dismissed his claim as “nonsense”.

Of course, it is no coincidence that this has surfaced just days after Ms Elphicke abandoned the Tories with a wounding parting shot at Rishi Sunak. Sir Robert did not decide to make it public previously. Her former party has every incentive to damage Ms Elphicke and try to embarrass Labour. There are also claims by “senior Tories” that she walked out because she was bitter about being denied a ministerial post. (If so, she would not be the first backbencher to think they had wrongly been denied a foot on the ministerial ladder.)

However, the suggestion that Ms Elphicke wanted her husband’s trial to be moved to a lower-profile court and heard by a different judge is a serious allegation; Sir Keir should at least question his party’s newest recruit about that. As a former director of public prosecutions, the Labour leader has strong credentials in this area. He has presented himself as a man of principle and integrity who will sweep the stables clean after years of Tory sleaze if he becomes prime minister.

Indeed, the Tories abandoned their principles and their integrity under Boris Johnson. But Sir Keir should not put his own at risk in his headlong rush to win over Tory voters.

In a speech in January, the Labour leader declared: “We need to clean up politics. No more VIP fast lanes. No more kickbacks for colleagues. No more revolving doors between government and the companies they regulate. I will restore standards in public life with a total crackdown on cronyism.” He told his biographer Tom Baldwin that if any of his ministers committed a serious breach of a tougher code of conduct he intended to introduce, they would be fired “on the spot”.

All well and good, but the need to uphold standards in public life applies to opposition as well as governing parties. Sir Keir’s allies hope the controversy over Ms Elphicke will blow over, and most voters notice only another Tory deserting a sinking ship, symbolising the mood of the country.

Yet Labour should learn lessons from the way Ms Elphicke’s move was mishandled. To ensure it made a splash at Prime Minister’s Questions last Wednesday, news of her switch was restricted to a very tight, male-dominated circle of Sir Keir’s closest aides. As The Independent revealed, other Tory MPs are considering defecting to Labour.

If any of these prospective defections materialise, Sir Keir would be well advised to consult a wider circle; it is surprising that Rachel Reeves, his influential shadow chancellor, was not in the loop about Ms Elphicke.

Labour would also be wise to ensure it performs the same level of due diligence it normally carries out when vetting its own parliamentary candidates (which, to its huge cost, it failed to do when selecting a candidate for the Rochdale by-election). Sir Keir should look carefully before he allows another Tory to leap into Labour’s arms.