Thought this was quite good on getting people to defect and not just because it makes an identical point to one I made around here the other day:
There’s no getting away from the fact that it is quite difficult to reconcile a “they’re all the same” argument with a “this person chose to leave one for the other” argument: if they’re all the same, why bother moving?
But the most important point is this one:
Someone who used to vote Tory not voting Tory now is one vote off the Tory column, and someone who used not to vote Labour voting Labour now is one vote on the Labour column, and some people can be in both categories at once, and the net impact of just one of these people on the difference between the total Tory vote and the total Labour vote is +2.
A bit wordy, but does very clearly make the point that Labour trying to win over Tory voters isn’t so much an indication of their political philosophy as an acknowledgement of arithmetic.
Because the party he’s leaving is about to face electoral annihilation after being in power for 14 years.
Nope, not that either, because he’s standing down at the next GE.
Could just be trying to save face. I’m not sure what his plans are, but leaving a moribund party is a good idea no matter who you are, it says nothing about Labour being different or having any fresh ideas.
It does, because it’s personally and professionally difficult to defect, which is why it’s so unusual. Even voters struggle to do it (as the blog discusses), so for an actual politician to do it is exceptional, especially when it’s not a question of saving his seat. For your thesis to be true, Labour and the Tories would have to be the same, but this would have to somehow not be evident to a Tory. This does not wash.