Why Natalie Elphicke’s defection is awkward for Labour too

It is an unlikely defection. As MP for Dover, Natalie Elphicke has long been one of the most outspoken figures on the Tory right on illegal migration.

She has also been a forthright critic of Sir Keir Starmer and Labour. Just over a year ago she wrote an article branding Starmer “Sir Softie” and saying that his party could not be trusted on migration because “they really want open borders”. And as recently as last June she praised Sunak for “showing that with grit and grip he can turn the small boats crisis around”.

However, her position has been gradually shifting in recent months. In November last year she called on Sunak to scrap his Rwanda policy altogether after the Supreme Court ruled that it was unlawful. The judgment, she said, means that the policy is now effectively at an end. “No planes will be leaving and we need to move forward,” she said.

As she crossed the floor shortly before prime minister’s questions on Wednesday she released a statement saying that under Sunak the Tories had “become a byword for incompetence and division” and that he had failed to secure Britain’s borders.

Precisely when Elphicke decided that Labour, not the Tories, could be trusted on Britain’s borders in unclear. The political problem for Sunak — already contending with a party demoralised by last week’s local election results — is the signal it sends to other Tory MPs.

Sunak cannot claim that Elphicke and Dan Poulter, the Conservative MP who defected to Labour last month, are joining the opposition to save their own jobs because they have made clear that they will not stand for Labour at the next election.

It is possible that Starmer will reward them in other ways — perhaps with peerages to boost Labour’s numbers in the House of Lords — but for now the defections can be portrayed as ones of conscience rather than expediency.

For Tory MPs staring down the barrel of an impending general election it further saps morale and adds to the sense that this is a government on borrowed time. But Elphicke’s defection is far from straightforward for Labour. In July 2020 her then husband, Charlie Elphicke, was found guilty of sexually assaulting two women.

The convictions came after years of denials, including a libel claim against The Sunday Times for revealing that Elphicke was being investigated over allegations of sexual assault.

His wife stood by him throughout, defending him when he had the whip suspended in 2017 and providing a character statement during his trial. On his conviction she announced the end of their marriage on Twitter, only to perform a U-turn and announce her support for him once again just days later. In an interview, she said that her husband had been punished for being “charming, wealthy, charismatic and successful — attractive and attracted to women. All things that in today’s climate made him an easy target for dirty politics and false allegations.”

She subsequently inherited his seat after he was forced to quit, in circumstances that remain a mystery. Five weeks before polling day in December 2019, she announced that she had been “unanimously” selected only for it to emerge that the local Conservative Association had put her forward as the only candidate.

All of this sits uneasily with some in Labour. One shadow minister said: “I’m glad she’s decided not to stand at the election. There’s a lot of people sat opposite me I’d welcome with open arms. I can’t say Natalie would have been one of those.”

Relations with her frontbench colleagues may also be uneasy. During the pandemic Elphicke criticised Marcus Rashford, the England footballer, over his free school meals campaign. Rashford, she suggested, should spend “more time perfecting his game and less time playing politics”.

The response from Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, was unusually blunt. In December 2022 she said Elphicke could “f*** off” for her comments about the footballer. While there is obvious political capital in the defection of a Tory MP, Elphicke’s move could equally become a significant source of controversy and lead to questions over the Labour leader’s judgment.