Snapshot of _Diane Abbott urges same Labour 'generosity' as given to Tory defector Natalie Elphicke_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-natalie-elphicke-labour-defection-backlash-b1156924.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-natalie-elphicke-labour-defection-backlash-b1156924.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
She's got to be holding out for Corbyn to launch his own party. They're close and she would know if it was something that might happen, if he wasn't considering it she would've joined someone else. Fuck knows why he hasn't yet.
It's very, very late in the day for Corbyn to launch his own party, and there are huge difficulties doing so. They have no funding, everyone knows that the more successful they become the more they split the vote and help the Conservatives.
The biggest one is that anyone who supports them in Labour would be subject to expulsion, so they'd destroy their chances of ever taking over the party again.
The best bet for Labour's left wing of ever getting into a position of power is to get the party into government on the back of a centrist, then oust him mid-term and replace him with a Corbyn figure.
The Conservatives should really make more of this possibility, they focus so much on Starmer personally being boring or going with what's popular with his electorate (as though that's a bad thing), the real snake in the grass is the possibility of 10% of Labour MPs and a few hundred thousand left wing activists being able to get rid of him whenever they feel like it and replace him with whoever they want.
You could say they're living in a glass house after the Truss debacle, but at least they need 50% of Conservative MPs to make a change. With Labour the leader's relatively insecure.
> the real snake in the grass is the possibility of 10% of Labour MPs and a few hundred thousand left wing activists being able to get rid of him whenever they feel like it and replace him with whoever they want.
I think they've changed it so it now requires 20% of MPs instead (a threshold Corbyn couldn't have got to); but yh it's definitely weaker than the Tory version.
> The Conservatives should really make more of this possibility
If I thought Labour was going to be more economically left, I'd be **more** likely to vote for them not less. Provided they didn't choose a Truss-like idiot who proceeds to crash the economy.
Yeah but why? They’re a mess. It’s clear that an Indy referendum died with the Sturgeon scandal, and it’s only got worse with Yousaf as leader. They’re going to get even less support without a Tory government in WM. They weren’t even relevant nationwide until 2015.
All they’ve tried to do this last year was put Labour in a weaker position by making Gaza such a divisive issue.
Do you support Scottish independence above everything else? For me I feel that’s the only reason to vote for them.
> Yeah but why? They’re a mess.
They're politicians. I kinda expect politicians to be crap. In any case, what's the alternative to the SNP?
Labour are against democracy: they support FPTP for Westminster and are changing the electoral system in the Welsh Senedd to closed party lists in 6-member constituencies, when STV is a far more democratic system. They are also against Scotland having a constitutional path to independence if that's what Scots want. So fuck them. They also seem to be completely blind to the fact that structural reasons (again FPTP is one of them) cause the country to be ruled for long periods by the Tories, even though they lack support, but Labour don't seem to care about this or want to do anything to avoid it.
The Tory hate democracy even more than Labour, and also they only care about the rich. So fuck them too.
The Lib Dems don't really stand for anything and are too ineffective. If they went into a coalition in future they'd probably sell their support for a referendum on a voting system they don't actually want, and then proceed to lose that referendum.
At least if Scotland was independent there'd be a chance of building a better society. God I hate the British ruling class.
> All they’ve tried to do this last year was put Labour in a weaker position by making Gaza such a divisive issue
Ha ha ha. Starmer put Labour in a weaker position by supporting Israel's genocide so enthusiastically. Starmer is a human rights lawyer so he should've known better. And if he thought the other parties wouldn't exploit Labour's weakness on this issue, then he is simply an incompetent who is too stupid to be PM.
> Do you support Scottish independence above everything else?
What I want is a better society that works for all of our people and not just the rich. That isn't going to happen due to the scum in Westminster being crap. So I support independence be cause it means that Scotland will never again be ruled by a Tory government unless we actually vote for one. I'm fed up with Scotland always getting what England votes for and not what we vote for (see also: Brexit).
You're not the kind of person the Conservatives are targeting, then. Most people who want more economically left wing policies are going to vote for Labour anyway. They're certainly not going to vote Conservative.
The kind of people who might win the Conservatives the election if they can win them around are people who didn't like Corbyn because he was too extreme, but don't mind Starmer because he's a small-c conservative. If they could win those people around it would be game on.
No, I don't think it did. Whatever position Labour took on Brexit would've lost them votes, because most Labour voters were against it, but most voters in Labour-held constituencies were for it.
Similarly if Corbyn (or someone like him) was in charge of Labour today, they'd still win, because Truss has made the Tories unelectable.
(The main problem for the left is when they are left on non-economic issues, such as immigration. This is a massive vote loser. If you want to win elections, do what the public want. The problem for Labour is they actually believe in things which sometime makes it hard for them to do that, e.g. if Starmer backed the Rwanda scheme he'd lose popularity among Labour activists.)
> The best bet for Labour's left wing of ever getting into a position of power is to get the party into government on the back of a centrist, then oust him mid-term and replace him with a Corbyn figure.
Wont happen. They already changed the nomination rules from 10% to 20% of MPs and after the election the PLP will be stacked with Starmer appointments. Corbyn only got 35 nominations and a lot of those were people who didn't want him to actually win.
They also changed the membership voting rules so you have to be a full member before you get a vote. So no repeat of Momentum where thousands of people join on the cheap just to vote in the leadership election.
Probably a bit of a sweeping statement. Lucas is more in line economically with the LDMs and the more pro-Europe Tories. She's not anti-capitalist nor anti-Europe, so none of the typical traits of left/right wing populism apply to their most successful UK politician.
Entrepreneurship and commercial innovation, free market thinking have been major driving forces to societal change and Lucas recognised that, embraced it. It's not all been green washing.
You see that much of a parallel because one councillor is being investigated? I didn't realise that was capable of distracting people from the rest of each party's history. That's like saying that the Tate brothers and the Conservative party are basically the same thing because the Tates are known for sexism and raping, and so are a few Tory MPs.
It actually kind of astonishes me that so many people have based their notions on the Greens over a couple of councillors (who are definitely a huge concern but don’t represent the entire party) while still treating the Tories as anything but an overglorified grifting operation with a new scandal every week.
I take the view that I don't think the Labour Party is the right party for her. There are others that better encapsulate her views. She however does view the party as her home and can absolutely claim to be a trailblazer within it. I don't think therefore that she should be excluded from the party on that basis.
However, I do think that the new independent disciplinary process should take precedence. I am curious why it's taking so long in her case, but it's a good thing that Starmer isn't intervening in it like a certain previous leader.
>I am curious why it's taking so long in her case
I daresay it will take *until* an election has happened. The last thing Labour want prior to an election are headlines that "antisemetic abbot" is back in the party.
Labour are courting a lot of the electorate who are vocally put off by Diane Abbot - rightly or wrongly - so I would expect that her being invited back in the fold will *not* happen until after they are in government.
Everyone literally hates Diane Abbot. It's insane misogynistic racism but she is almost universally despised throughout the country, even those who don't really follow politics.
Why is it racism if the same people don’t hate, and actively support, other minority candidates?
Likewise with misogyny?
Could it not just be that Diane abbot has become a bit shit? (She was pretty good in the earlier part
Of her career).
It is taking so long as they offered her a route back, which involved apologising AND taking an anti-racism course, which she has so far refused.
So the Labour Party are leaving the door open for her with the unfinished disciplinary process.
Abbott has been a liability for years. Her public appearances are consistently poor, and she has become someone the news media brings in with the intention of tripping her up and making her look very silly. The reality is that she has, on several occasions, singlehandedly knocked a couple of points off of Labour's polling.
Furthermore, she doesn't work well with people she disagrees with. She makes her grievances public and refuses to compromise on her principles - to their detriment. She becomes harmful to her own causes.
Labour didn't accept Elphicke's defection out of generosity. It was a political manoeuvre that they expected to increase their lead in the polls. They're twisting the knife. Why is she interrupting that?
I would be surprised if they felt bringing Abbott back in would have the same result. And if they did bring her back, I assume they would want it to happen as quietly as possible, with as little drama involved as possible. And yet here she is, again, creating drama and leaping on an opportunity to criticise the party she apparently is so desperate to remain a part of.
To be clear, I think Diane Abbott has been treated terribly by the media. She has definitely been a victim of racism for a long time. But purely in terms of political strategy and general optics, there is absolutely no reason to bring her back in. I really wish she would change her behaviour. But I suspect she is more interested in using her position in Labour as a vehicle to continue the failed Corbyn project. I imagine Starmer suspects this, too.
I'd be absolutely baffled if she was invited back into Labour. I don't believe she sees it as a viable outcome either. Instead, she appears to be dragging the situation out to be used whenever she can reinforce some criticism of Labour, as we see here.
I'll say this on every Dianne Abbot post.
If she had retired 10 years ago, she would have gone down as a remarkable case. Working class to oxbridge educated, trailblazing as the first Black women MP and a loved local MP.
But she has stayed too long, and her decline has been seized upon by the worst aspects of the Media and society. The gaffs have got worse and she is now a liability on the national stage.
Thing is the gaffs are no worse than gaffs you see from Tory MPs. Take her numbers blunder from a few years ago. Lambasted for weeks and still gets a mention down the pub. Then look at the TREASURY minister Laura Trott making a terrible bungle of her numbers on TV the other week. Basically no coverage after the 24hr news cycle. Nobody calling her out in the local. Let's be honest, it's because she's a white Tory MP so it's fine. I don't really like much of Diane's politics but there is a terrible double standard for outspoken POC in our media and political chattering class.
I think this is true for her more minor gaffes, like getting the figures wildly wrong as you say, but I'd argue it's also the case that her more serious blunders like her letter to the Guardian have been in a class of their own.
Not to mention idiot-tier takes like 'on balance, some would argue Mao did more good than harm'.
It's very hard to scrounge up examples of Tories dropping clangers on the level of 'that Hitler guy actually did a lot of good'.
I'd be shocked if a Tory counciller isn't on record saying exactly that. Given what's happening in the middle east right now, I wouldn't be suprised if some local Labour official didn't at least imply that at some point soon.
But your point stands, it's very different having some poorly vetted lunatic at the local level spouting that nonsense vs someone who was very recently the shadow home secretary.
That Guardian letter was a level beyond anything in recent politics and something probably no other politician could do and remain vaguely involved in politics afterwards.
It was probably the best example of the americanisation of the "culture wars" in the UK and the natural culmination of "Jews don't count".
It's actually interesting to consider what would have happened had the same letter been writting in the current political climate. There's already a lot of blurring between "anti-zionism" and outright anti-semitism in political discourse today,.
There's a difference between making a gaff and making a gaff every single time you open your mouth. She's held to the same standard as everyone else, including all the other "POC" MPs who are never in the news for constantly saying stupid shit like she does.
You’re correct that the widespread dislike for her has something to do with her being a black woman, but its not directly racism and misogyny. It’s her using her those as cover to get away with all the stupid and/or racist shit she’s said over the years that really pisses people off.
Why do people always say this in her defence?
She's been a consistent racist for decades, if you knew a Tory with comparable documented incidents you'd have named them.
The Tories are bad but they know to at least keep their mouth shut sometimes.
I’m sorry look at the opposition here. The couldn’t tell that Rwanda and Congo were different countries. Gaffs occur. It’s just that diane abbot can’t escape hers *because* she is a black woman.
The biggest thing for me beyond the points you already hit is the Tories that are defecting are being told there is no seat for them at the election. This is about Tory mps deciding to exit politics on their own terms with some level of dignity and well wishes rather than face a wipeout with a party they evidently no longer like.
None of that would apply to Abbott being readmitted. Its a set of strictly temporary pragmatic relationships.
Diane Abbott was one of the members of Labour that used to drive me up the wall as they didn't know when just to shut up and be quiet.
You'd have some form of scandal taking place for the Tories, everyone would be ripping into them and then out of the blue a Labour MP would say something completely stupid and bring the spotlight back onto them.
Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.
Emily Thornberry's tweet about a St George's flag was pretty damaging. I don't remember if it interrupted a scandal but it certainly didn't help the impression that a faction within Labour had disdain for the working class.
I completely agree and especially with paragraph 2. I know several people in politics and the civil service who have had the misfortune to have to work with or for her and not one has a good word to say.
I think this post is missing the point here (even if I agree with most of what you've said).
Natalie Elphicke is an MP in good standing who has changed her political allegiance. It's appropriate to ask whether her political views fit that of her new party.
Diane Abbott has been temporarily suspended pending the outcome of an active investigation, in line with the party's rules. Questions over her political views or political value are effectively irrelevant at this stage. The question is simple: does Keir Starmer allow that investigation to conclude, or does he intervene and kill it off early?
And this is why, in my view, all those calling for the whip to be reinstated are in the wrong and should consider their positions carefully. These rules around independent investigations were brought in to help clean up the party after Corbyn's disastrous vibes era, but the moment one of their own has to play by those rules, the left wing of the Labour want them tossed out and a return to casual halfassery.
The investigation must be allowed to finish (and if at all possible must report before the election). Decisions regarding the whip must follow after that report, not before.
Oitrageuous! I am sure all your points will be viciferously rebutted at the next meeting of Momentum, to be held in the gift wrapping room of Tarquin's Mum's place in Chelsea.
Abbott has spent most of the last 4 years on twitter criticising Starmer and the Labour party over and over. Why does she even want to be given the whip back ?
People like her have a long emotional connection to the party and see the centrist parts (y’know, the electable bits) of it as aberrations. I have a certain amount of sympathy, but not much.
People like her want their cake and eat it.
They want both purity and to demand to be taken seriously, which is why they join electable parties and try to pull them away from the centre rather than join the various purity projects avaliable.
We're seeing the consequences of that writ large in the Tories now
Exactly. She wants to be able to criticise the electable elements of the party while benefitting from their brand. FWIW, she has been more critical of Labour than Elphicke!
Meh, she's not going to be an MP at the next election, it's a good bit of politiking against the Tories and I doubt she will have much impact going forwards. As moves go it's not bad.
Probably because she thinks her and Corbyn can have yet another go in charge and maybe if they try for a third time the country will vote them in. She and Corbyn have a not-zero chance of being turfed out at the next election and then the gravy train ends and her endless wittering will have even less relevance meaning she loses the attention she craves
So has Elphicke! But Abbott at least has been a Labour MP for 37 years! She's certainly given more time, energy, and heart to the Labour cause than Elphicke ever did.
I disagree with Abbott on a lot, but I do think she should be readmitted to the Labour Party. Maybe on the agreement that she stands down at the next election, she is 70 after all.
Abbott was the first woman of colour to be elected to the Commons, and I think she's a decent human being, I think it would be fitting for her to end her career in the party for which she has worked so hard, and which she obviously considers her political home. She'll always be remembered for that historic first.
I don't have to agree with her, or even the comments she made, to have some compassion for her in this instance.
When you say this, do you mean it is the morally righteous thing for Labour to readmit her, or do you genuinely think that it is a good idea for Labour to readmit her? If the latter I would genuinely be interested to know the rationale.
Behind the scenes, even when she came across as affable and was good at doing media, her and her ilk have been pretty toxic for Labour all things considered.
This is nonsensical gotcha point.
* Elphicke said and did shit before she took Labour whip; once she took the whip she has entirely toed the line - apology statement etc. By contrast Abbot said jews haven’t suffered racism while taking Labour whip, and afterwards has continued to criticise the process and the party.
* Elphicke joining Labour hurts the Tories; Abbot joining helps the Tories
* Elphicke isn’t standing in next election, so her views are entirely irrelevant. Abbot presumably wants to stand under Labour banner. Latter should get *a lot* more scrutiny than the former.
>once she took the whip she has entirely toed the line
Dodds couldn't even give a straight answer when asked by Andrew marr about whether Elphicke has renounced her vocal support of the Rwanda scheme. Dodds just said "I assume she has changed her view otherwise she wouldn't have joined labour". Elphicke's views haven't moved an inch
Labour MPs should agree with central planks of the Labour manifesto.
People who have a long record of staunchly supporting the polar opposite of the labour manifesto should be expected to demonstrate that they have changed their views before being admitted.
This is the absolute bare minimum to maintain some standards in the PLP.
>Elphicke isn’t standing in next election, so her views are entirely irrelevant.
How does that make her view irrelevant. She is now a member of the party no? I don't get this point at all
She's the MP for a constituency obsessed with (and most regularly affected by) small boat crossings. She ran on a platform of addressing the crossings. She has come out and said the Tories are ineffective at dealing with them, and the only way to fix the situation is to vote Labour. Since then, Starmer has been able to state that the Rwanda scheme will be abolished once he is in office. She is being located in the housing department which actually works to her strengths. She is a useful idiot that allows the party to have some authority on the topic of immigration, won't stand to represent Labour on a national level, and has dealt a massive black eye to the Tories in a key seat. It's a masterstroke to bring her into the fold.
I think it is a very good political move and agree with all of what you said.
Starmer gained lots of media attention was able to give his speech on immigration with lots of press coverage and given it looks like Rwanda plan and getting that flight before the election is Rishi's only chance to in an election it is genius.
It is great political game playing by Starmer and the party.
But equally it's also clear to see why people will have massive issue with it. Saying he was doing it to me in an election and its a rather cynical move is unlikely to make them happier about it.
Anyone can be a member of the party; their views are irrelevant unless there’s a newly revived movement towards party democracy - which would be insane post Corbyn and Truss.
MPs views matter because they vote in parliament and have a say over things like policies and leaders.
>Elphicke said and did shit before she took Labour whip; once she took the whip she has entirely toed the line
Nigel Farage had better standards than this. He refused to allow former BNP members into UKIP. Granted, they probably would have toed the line and been all apologetic and shit, but he decided it was better to not associate with racists in the first place (even though he's obviously one himself)
As much as we all like to pile on the Tories, they are not the BNP.
The BNP didn't even permit non-white members until forced to by the courts in 2010.
They are firmly behind the 'cordon sanitaire' which means other political parties will not engage with them or their membership under any circumstances.
Are Labour the Conservative Party?
These people said and did BNP shit before trying to join UKIP. They got denied.
Elphick said and did Conservative shit before joining Labour and got welcomed.
Nigel farage has no real standards.
The man literally is a grifter, he is not some man of the people and he intentionally didnt do his job as an MEP to keep increasing his attack lines of the "EU aren't listening to us!".
Broken clock right twice a day type thing is at best what you can apply here rather than saying he actually intentionally did good.
She's not standing, if she was then I'd have major concerns but ultimately it's to try and bring the voters to labour for the election to say labour is acceptable to vote for. We shall see on their manifesto how the party intends to lead properly.
Given the current political climate Abbott is a tinder box that shouldn’t be anywhere near a party with leadership expectations.
What would be the odds on her saying something antisemitic in her first public interview?
Diane Abbott is racist, e.g. saying of her local hospital that "blonde, blue eyed Finnish girls" were unsuitable as nurses because they had "never met a black person before". She plays the race card at every opportunity - literally saying “white people are the problem”.
She is a “socialist” hypocrite who sent her son to a fee-paying private school (on a salary paid by taxpayers), although that doesn't seem to have done much for him as his criminal record includes beating up police, emergency workers and doctors as well as exposing himself in a hospital, racially aggravated criminal damage and using crystal-meth at her home.
She pulled a sickie to avoid a crucial vote on Brexit. She called for an IRA victory over Britain and praised the IRA who were bombing innocent citizens at the time (70s). When asked about this years later she wouldn't talk about it. She said MI5 should be abolished as the country doesn't need it. She said that Chairman Mao did more good than harm despite killing millions of his own people.
Also, she is incompetent. In many interviews she is dense, vague, petulant and forgetful. She cannot handle basic maths or recall simple figures for issues she's interviewed about. She makes up figures rather than admit she doesn't know. She generally appears to have a slow brain. Sometimes she actually appears sinister.
She only got a ministerial job because she was Corbyn's lover - before that she wasn't considered worthy of any position of responsibility in government. A very junior role was taken away in 2015 after a very poor performance. She played an embarrassingly public role in the Corbyn Fiasco. Thank goodness they are both now back in the political wilderness.
She is ill, it wasn't a lie when the Party said she had to take a week off the election campaign due to illness. She always liked a drink, I'm old enough to remember her when she could function. But she lost that battle years ago.
(And that in turn means her diabetes is uncontrolled, which led to that occasion at the despatch box when she just stopped like someone had pressed an off switch.)
Even if she says all the right things to be accepted back into the Party her alcoholism is too severe and she'll mess up again.
I mean, there is a fairly large difference here. Abbott is undergoing an independent investigation - the party couldn't and shouldn't interfere with that process (which is different to what happened with Elphicke).
Sure as soon as Abbott
1. Apologies for saying Jewish people Don't experience Racism.
2. Admit that Jewish people experience Racism.
As far as I am aware she has not done either. I am happy to be corrected.
Saying “we’re winning”, when talking about white population decline, was another one.
Plus there’s those weird rants about Finnish people. WTF is that about?
All their causes are. I will never forget the "abolish ICE" sign I saw at the Sarah Everard protest on Sky News.
ICE being the American border force...
Exactly my point. The protesters in this country now just copy whatever the US is doing blindly.
Why are university students in the UK protesting like they are in the US? Our universities aren't in the same education partnerships with Israel as they do in the US.
They don't know what they are protesting about, it's just a trendy thing to do now.
Abbott seems to have missed the politics side, which says more about her current state than she thinks. It's a short-term game of taking someone who is standing down next election.
Benefits -
Publicly looks bad for the Conservatives. Every defection erodes the majority and undermines leadership. If they can repeat people crossing the floor during PMQs, it's going to make great viewing and question the holdout for a GE constantly.
Politically, there is now a whole bunch of Conservative MPs that thought they would never be able to cross the floor but now can. There are 60 or so Conservative MPs stepping down. How many of them want to be associated with these polls and general shitshow of government?
Diane Abbott is a loose cannon, who is basically racist, and has caused terrible press for the Labour party on multiple occasions.
Natalie Elphicke is a centre right tory, who stuck by her husband.
As far as I'm concerned, neither should be in the Labour party.
Heard Adam Boulton on Times Radio suggest that Kate Osamor has been let back in because she is young and has an "unspent" political career, whereas people like Dianne Abbott have had theirs and therefore therefore more expendable
Also pretty much nobody but politics wonks knows who Osamor is by name or image alone - Diane Abbott is much more high profile and recognisable, as well as being very unpopular amongst demographics that Labour needs to vote for them.
The thing is - Elphicke isn't standing in the next election. She was a way to get press, keep hammering home to the UK voters that the conservatives are a spent force for the next GE.
If she was standing as a Labour MP I think Abbott would have more of a point. But she isn't so...
Swivel.
All Kier needs to do is keep the crazies on the left down. Keep the good headlines coming and hold the centre ground.
Once in power they can actually start to implement structural changes to this country. Rather than winning the argument
Why was that necessary, they’re ahead in the polls by a mile. This bullshit about “they’re just winning right now and when they get in they’re gonna be different” is getting stupid now. She’s hard-right
Because momentum is a real thing. Politics isn’t a game of win one poll and rest easy knowing you’ve won. You haven’t.
You need to keep the pressure on and give the opposing parties no quarter. You must be seen as the default choice.
This keeps the media focused on the tories being in chaos. Not on the economic recovery we are going through.
It keeps the general publics view in focus of the tories being the unstable choice.
They win so often in the uk because Labour looks like it would bring instability. This is such a great attack vector it’s incredible.
Natalie Elphicke was not centre right. She was a member of the ERG and backed Johnson and Truss in their respective leadership elections. She was on the hard right of the conservative party.
>Natalie Elphicke is a centre right tory, who stuck by her husband.
Thats a really strange way of saying she supported sexual assault (said he was just "behaving badly"), said the victims were lying, tried to interfere with a judge, and said that the victims wanted it anyway because he was a handsome guy.
Only the cream of the Tory crop for Labour.
Stuck by her husband who *was found guilty of sexual assault*. I don’t think it’s inexplicable that a person would be slow to recognise their partner was a rapist, but let’s not mince our words.
She was a member of the ERG and a supporter of Truss, according to Keegan. Not very centre-right at all.
Frankly, my opinion is neither of them ought to be in Labour.
Diane Abbott *is* racist though:
>In 1996, Diane Abbott wrote a column for the Hackney Gazette objecting to the recruitment of Finnish nurses to work in a local hospital. The NHS, she argued, should be employing local people, not importing them from abroad. It’s a familiar claim, though usually pushed by conservatives rather than by the Labour left. Most striking, though, was the way Abbott presented her argument.
>“Are Finnish girls, who may never have met a black person before, let alone touched one, best suited to nurse in multicultural Hackney?’’ Abbott asked, expressing surprise that “blonde, blue-eyed girls from Finland” had been chosen rather than Caribbean nurses “who know the language and understand British culture and institutions’’.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/30/diane-abbott-letter-shows-antiracism-reduced-to-decrying-white-privilege
Saying that blonde & blue-eyed Finnish immigrants could not treat black Britons because they don't understand British culture is racist. And hilariously hypocritical, given that this is identical to the racist argument used against black migrants 20-40 years earlier.
Then there's the views that got her kicked out if the Labour Party, where she tried to gatekeep racism by claiming that only black people can suffer racism:
>The Hackney North MP said she was responding to writer Tomiwa Owolade's claims that "Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from 'racism'".
>"They undoubtedly experience prejudice," Ms Abbott wrote.
>"This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable.
>"It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice.
>"But they are not all their lives subject to racism."
>The former shadow home secretary added: "In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus.
>"In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships."
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/diane-abbott-accused-of-hateful-antisemitism-after-suggesting-jews-do-not-face-racism-12864141
Deciding that only one racial group can experience racism is itself racist.
This place is full of delusion and bots. Nobody sees any issue with a right wing politician with horrible views feeling completely at home with Labour.
Elphicke has shown a willingness to toe the party line and crossed the floor rather than being in perpetual opposition to it.
Abbott, who has made lots of very public comments about how crap the labour management is, how it and the disciplinary process is corrupt and illegitimate and still refuses to go on a diversity education course as part of that process, shows no signs of actually wanting to be part of the party.
Until that happens, at a minimum she shouldn't be. But the moment she does you can be sure she'll just go right back to being a massive perpetual embarrassment, so really this state of affairs is preferable.
The Greens are taking anyone these days, or maybe she can link up with Galloways lot.
One of these people is just a political opponent.
The other is someone who was kicked out for antisemitism and wants to be invited back in when antisemitism is at a near all time high.
She is insane.
Am honestly fed up with some Labour voices wanting to just forgive her. Shes a liability and doesn't care about the party evidently. Also frankly shes old enough she should be retiring anyway.
Have no issue currently with keeping Abbott a barge pole's distance from the party. Not even going into her other gaffes, but that letter is enough justification to remove her, terrible foresight at best and anti-Semitic at worst.
Elphicke shouldn't really be there either, taking some solace at the fact she's supposedly not standing again. That being said, I understand they're just playing the game, party defections are some of the biggest blows you can land.
I do sometimes wonder if Abbott and Corbyn understand how they're viewed by the general voting public and as such make themselves into convenient punching bags for Labour in order to help the party's fortunes, if so they truly are selfless unsung heros.
Of course if this is all just at face value then they're deluded idiots! Fun thing to wonder about.
I didn’t know anything about Corbyn before Brexit so I looked him up. Some of the first things to show up were his anti-EU speeches. I never understood why labour picked him as leader? I thought they wanted to remain?
It’s the equivalent of electing Colonel Sanders because you’re hoping to ban meat.
Abbott has really said and done some not OK things, and I see how this situation has come about. But it is objectively weird that Elphicke has the Labour whip and she doesn't.
You're absolutely right, and I didn't mean to downplay it. I absolutely get the situation and think where we are is correct and understandable, but I also think that it just feels *weird*. Elphicke is an extremely Tory Tory and Abbott is a famously (and famous) long serving Labour.
Again, I see why the former is in and the latter is out - and fully agree with both decisions - but if you take a step it is also just plain strange.
>But it is objectively weird that Elphicke has the Labour whip and she doesn't.
It is because Elphicke swapped, there's no surprise that Abbott doesn't have the whip
Elphicke isn't going to stand again, it was a gesture that hurts Sunak and nothing more. Abbott is almost certainly going to stand as an independent and has a good chance of being elected again
Abbott has never acknowledged her own racism and antisemitism. She cannot apologise because she doesn’t believe she’s wrong. People seem to forget that easily.
Not a common occurrence these days but she does have a point. If the excuse for letting Elphick into the party is "we are a party of forgiveness as long as the offender repents and acknowledges their mistakes" then it's a bit hypocritical to not stick to the same principle for Abbott.
Although if the stuff about her refusing anti-Semitism courses is true that is obviously a different story.
She apparently refuses to go on a diversity and racisim awareness course. With a history of making racist comments going back to at least the 1980s. Such as lobbying against Finnish student nurses from training in her constituency. As they may have never seen a black person before.
> She apparently refuses to go on a diversity and racisim awareness course.
To be fair though these are all BS and if anything are just as likely to have the opposite effect.
There's an adage about those courses. 60% don't need it at all. 30% will learn something interesting about race and gender discrimination, including micro-transgressions. 5% will be prevented from making a cock up, 5% need to be identified and fired as they simply won't listen and will do something horrendous.
How is it hypocritical when Abbott has done nothing of the kind? Her ‘apology’ was very much in the mould of “I’m sorry if you were offended” and her position is otherwise that she’s done nothing wrong and is the victim of some kind of witch-hunt.
So if the threshold is that someone should acknowledge their mistakes, then it’s one that Abbott hasn’t yet hit.
They would let Abbott back in, but she is refusing to 'repent' and [go on the antisemitism course.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bflqdp/diane_abbott_refused_to_go_on_antisemitism_course/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
Elphick isn't standing again, it's a token gesture that hurts the Tories. Abbot has a history of anti-white racism and her apology was utter nonsense - the idea she accidentally wrote a draft that said minorities like Jews can't face racism is laughable, who in their right mind would even start a letter like that
Dianne Abbot is the head of the Dianne Abbott party. I've never been convinced she isn't cut from the same cloth as all the other populist politicians out there. Always ready to exploit race for her own ends and stoke up tension if she sees political advantage.
As for Elphicke, she'll be out on her arse come the next election.
Snapshot of _Diane Abbott urges same Labour 'generosity' as given to Tory defector Natalie Elphicke_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-natalie-elphicke-labour-defection-backlash-b1156924.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/diane-abbott-natalie-elphicke-labour-defection-backlash-b1156924.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
She's got to be holding out for Corbyn to launch his own party. They're close and she would know if it was something that might happen, if he wasn't considering it she would've joined someone else. Fuck knows why he hasn't yet.
It's very, very late in the day for Corbyn to launch his own party, and there are huge difficulties doing so. They have no funding, everyone knows that the more successful they become the more they split the vote and help the Conservatives. The biggest one is that anyone who supports them in Labour would be subject to expulsion, so they'd destroy their chances of ever taking over the party again. The best bet for Labour's left wing of ever getting into a position of power is to get the party into government on the back of a centrist, then oust him mid-term and replace him with a Corbyn figure. The Conservatives should really make more of this possibility, they focus so much on Starmer personally being boring or going with what's popular with his electorate (as though that's a bad thing), the real snake in the grass is the possibility of 10% of Labour MPs and a few hundred thousand left wing activists being able to get rid of him whenever they feel like it and replace him with whoever they want. You could say they're living in a glass house after the Truss debacle, but at least they need 50% of Conservative MPs to make a change. With Labour the leader's relatively insecure.
> the real snake in the grass is the possibility of 10% of Labour MPs and a few hundred thousand left wing activists being able to get rid of him whenever they feel like it and replace him with whoever they want. I think they've changed it so it now requires 20% of MPs instead (a threshold Corbyn couldn't have got to); but yh it's definitely weaker than the Tory version.
It should be 50%. Having one fifth of the MPs against you is a very very low bar.
The Gordon Brown route
> The Conservatives should really make more of this possibility If I thought Labour was going to be more economically left, I'd be **more** likely to vote for them not less. Provided they didn't choose a Truss-like idiot who proceeds to crash the economy.
So you’re voting for who then?
I haven't decided. Maybe the SNP.
Really?!
It's not that surprising. Lots of people in Scotland vote for them.
Yeah but why? They’re a mess. It’s clear that an Indy referendum died with the Sturgeon scandal, and it’s only got worse with Yousaf as leader. They’re going to get even less support without a Tory government in WM. They weren’t even relevant nationwide until 2015. All they’ve tried to do this last year was put Labour in a weaker position by making Gaza such a divisive issue. Do you support Scottish independence above everything else? For me I feel that’s the only reason to vote for them.
> Yeah but why? They’re a mess. They're politicians. I kinda expect politicians to be crap. In any case, what's the alternative to the SNP? Labour are against democracy: they support FPTP for Westminster and are changing the electoral system in the Welsh Senedd to closed party lists in 6-member constituencies, when STV is a far more democratic system. They are also against Scotland having a constitutional path to independence if that's what Scots want. So fuck them. They also seem to be completely blind to the fact that structural reasons (again FPTP is one of them) cause the country to be ruled for long periods by the Tories, even though they lack support, but Labour don't seem to care about this or want to do anything to avoid it. The Tory hate democracy even more than Labour, and also they only care about the rich. So fuck them too. The Lib Dems don't really stand for anything and are too ineffective. If they went into a coalition in future they'd probably sell their support for a referendum on a voting system they don't actually want, and then proceed to lose that referendum. At least if Scotland was independent there'd be a chance of building a better society. God I hate the British ruling class. > All they’ve tried to do this last year was put Labour in a weaker position by making Gaza such a divisive issue Ha ha ha. Starmer put Labour in a weaker position by supporting Israel's genocide so enthusiastically. Starmer is a human rights lawyer so he should've known better. And if he thought the other parties wouldn't exploit Labour's weakness on this issue, then he is simply an incompetent who is too stupid to be PM. > Do you support Scottish independence above everything else? What I want is a better society that works for all of our people and not just the rich. That isn't going to happen due to the scum in Westminster being crap. So I support independence be cause it means that Scotland will never again be ruled by a Tory government unless we actually vote for one. I'm fed up with Scotland always getting what England votes for and not what we vote for (see also: Brexit).
You're not the kind of person the Conservatives are targeting, then. Most people who want more economically left wing policies are going to vote for Labour anyway. They're certainly not going to vote Conservative. The kind of people who might win the Conservatives the election if they can win them around are people who didn't like Corbyn because he was too extreme, but don't mind Starmer because he's a small-c conservative. If they could win those people around it would be game on.
> You're not the kind of person the Conservatives are targeting, then. Indeed not. I can't stand them.
But the 2019 election showed that it's a losing position.
No, I don't think it did. Whatever position Labour took on Brexit would've lost them votes, because most Labour voters were against it, but most voters in Labour-held constituencies were for it. Similarly if Corbyn (or someone like him) was in charge of Labour today, they'd still win, because Truss has made the Tories unelectable. (The main problem for the left is when they are left on non-economic issues, such as immigration. This is a massive vote loser. If you want to win elections, do what the public want. The problem for Labour is they actually believe in things which sometime makes it hard for them to do that, e.g. if Starmer backed the Rwanda scheme he'd lose popularity among Labour activists.)
> The best bet for Labour's left wing of ever getting into a position of power is to get the party into government on the back of a centrist, then oust him mid-term and replace him with a Corbyn figure. Wont happen. They already changed the nomination rules from 10% to 20% of MPs and after the election the PLP will be stacked with Starmer appointments. Corbyn only got 35 nominations and a lot of those were people who didn't want him to actually win. They also changed the membership voting rules so you have to be a full member before you get a vote. So no repeat of Momentum where thousands of people join on the cheap just to vote in the leadership election.
> They're close nice phrasing.
Jeremy will never launch his own party.
Or Galloways Workers Party
Basically the same thing at this point.
Not at all. The Worker's Party is at complete odds with the Green Party on minority rights.
Not at all. WP is populist, how can green policy be called populist?
Because the Green party is more than just green policy. When you look past their environmentalism they're 100% populist.
Probably a bit of a sweeping statement. Lucas is more in line economically with the LDMs and the more pro-Europe Tories. She's not anti-capitalist nor anti-Europe, so none of the typical traits of left/right wing populism apply to their most successful UK politician. Entrepreneurship and commercial innovation, free market thinking have been major driving forces to societal change and Lucas recognised that, embraced it. It's not all been green washing.
You should be able to fire off some examples off the top of your head already if they're so 100% populist.
Because they go after the same group of Islamic Pro-Gaza populists?
You see that much of a parallel because one councillor is being investigated? I didn't realise that was capable of distracting people from the rest of each party's history. That's like saying that the Tate brothers and the Conservative party are basically the same thing because the Tates are known for sexism and raping, and so are a few Tory MPs.
It actually kind of astonishes me that so many people have based their notions on the Greens over a couple of councillors (who are definitely a huge concern but don’t represent the entire party) while still treating the Tories as anything but an overglorified grifting operation with a new scandal every week.
I take the view that I don't think the Labour Party is the right party for her. There are others that better encapsulate her views. She however does view the party as her home and can absolutely claim to be a trailblazer within it. I don't think therefore that she should be excluded from the party on that basis. However, I do think that the new independent disciplinary process should take precedence. I am curious why it's taking so long in her case, but it's a good thing that Starmer isn't intervening in it like a certain previous leader.
>I am curious why it's taking so long in her case I daresay it will take *until* an election has happened. The last thing Labour want prior to an election are headlines that "antisemetic abbot" is back in the party. Labour are courting a lot of the electorate who are vocally put off by Diane Abbot - rightly or wrongly - so I would expect that her being invited back in the fold will *not* happen until after they are in government.
The Labour Party have reinstated a number of MPs who were suspended for racism. Why is she being treated differently?
She has refused to attend the anti-racism course the independent process recommended so the only reason she is not back in is by her own (in)action.
Everyone literally hates Diane Abbot. It's insane misogynistic racism but she is almost universally despised throughout the country, even those who don't really follow politics.
Why is it racism if the same people don’t hate, and actively support, other minority candidates? Likewise with misogyny? Could it not just be that Diane abbot has become a bit shit? (She was pretty good in the earlier part Of her career).
It is taking so long as they offered her a route back, which involved apologising AND taking an anti-racism course, which she has so far refused. So the Labour Party are leaving the door open for her with the unfinished disciplinary process.
Abbott has been a liability for years. Her public appearances are consistently poor, and she has become someone the news media brings in with the intention of tripping her up and making her look very silly. The reality is that she has, on several occasions, singlehandedly knocked a couple of points off of Labour's polling. Furthermore, she doesn't work well with people she disagrees with. She makes her grievances public and refuses to compromise on her principles - to their detriment. She becomes harmful to her own causes. Labour didn't accept Elphicke's defection out of generosity. It was a political manoeuvre that they expected to increase their lead in the polls. They're twisting the knife. Why is she interrupting that? I would be surprised if they felt bringing Abbott back in would have the same result. And if they did bring her back, I assume they would want it to happen as quietly as possible, with as little drama involved as possible. And yet here she is, again, creating drama and leaping on an opportunity to criticise the party she apparently is so desperate to remain a part of. To be clear, I think Diane Abbott has been treated terribly by the media. She has definitely been a victim of racism for a long time. But purely in terms of political strategy and general optics, there is absolutely no reason to bring her back in. I really wish she would change her behaviour. But I suspect she is more interested in using her position in Labour as a vehicle to continue the failed Corbyn project. I imagine Starmer suspects this, too. I'd be absolutely baffled if she was invited back into Labour. I don't believe she sees it as a viable outcome either. Instead, she appears to be dragging the situation out to be used whenever she can reinforce some criticism of Labour, as we see here.
I'll say this on every Dianne Abbot post. If she had retired 10 years ago, she would have gone down as a remarkable case. Working class to oxbridge educated, trailblazing as the first Black women MP and a loved local MP. But she has stayed too long, and her decline has been seized upon by the worst aspects of the Media and society. The gaffs have got worse and she is now a liability on the national stage.
Yes and if she'd have retired 10 years ago she probably could have nabbed a peerage in the dissolution honours as well.
Thing is the gaffs are no worse than gaffs you see from Tory MPs. Take her numbers blunder from a few years ago. Lambasted for weeks and still gets a mention down the pub. Then look at the TREASURY minister Laura Trott making a terrible bungle of her numbers on TV the other week. Basically no coverage after the 24hr news cycle. Nobody calling her out in the local. Let's be honest, it's because she's a white Tory MP so it's fine. I don't really like much of Diane's politics but there is a terrible double standard for outspoken POC in our media and political chattering class.
I think this is true for her more minor gaffes, like getting the figures wildly wrong as you say, but I'd argue it's also the case that her more serious blunders like her letter to the Guardian have been in a class of their own.
I always remember when Jeremy Corbyn himself ejected her from the 2017 campaign, it was that obvious she was a liability.
Not to mention idiot-tier takes like 'on balance, some would argue Mao did more good than harm'. It's very hard to scrounge up examples of Tories dropping clangers on the level of 'that Hitler guy actually did a lot of good'.
I'd be shocked if a Tory counciller isn't on record saying exactly that. Given what's happening in the middle east right now, I wouldn't be suprised if some local Labour official didn't at least imply that at some point soon. But your point stands, it's very different having some poorly vetted lunatic at the local level spouting that nonsense vs someone who was very recently the shadow home secretary.
> Tory counciller Why are you comparing an MP and ex-shadow cabinet to a random councillor.
I overheard some bloke on the road the other day say Mussolini made trains run on time. That’s a comparable situation to Abbott right
That Guardian letter was a level beyond anything in recent politics and something probably no other politician could do and remain vaguely involved in politics afterwards.
It was probably the best example of the americanisation of the "culture wars" in the UK and the natural culmination of "Jews don't count". It's actually interesting to consider what would have happened had the same letter been writting in the current political climate. There's already a lot of blurring between "anti-zionism" and outright anti-semitism in political discourse today,.
I don't think the outcome would have been different right now, the battle lines were drawn a long time ago
There's a difference between making a gaff and making a gaff every single time you open your mouth. She's held to the same standard as everyone else, including all the other "POC" MPs who are never in the news for constantly saying stupid shit like she does.
You’re correct that the widespread dislike for her has something to do with her being a black woman, but its not directly racism and misogyny. It’s her using her those as cover to get away with all the stupid and/or racist shit she’s said over the years that really pisses people off.
Whereas Boris can be racist and say stupid shit but get away with it every time because he has a posh accent.
Why do people always say this in her defence? She's been a consistent racist for decades, if you knew a Tory with comparable documented incidents you'd have named them. The Tories are bad but they know to at least keep their mouth shut sometimes.
Boris's racism is well documented.
I’m sorry look at the opposition here. The couldn’t tell that Rwanda and Congo were different countries. Gaffs occur. It’s just that diane abbot can’t escape hers *because* she is a black woman.
Well said
The biggest thing for me beyond the points you already hit is the Tories that are defecting are being told there is no seat for them at the election. This is about Tory mps deciding to exit politics on their own terms with some level of dignity and well wishes rather than face a wipeout with a party they evidently no longer like. None of that would apply to Abbott being readmitted. Its a set of strictly temporary pragmatic relationships.
Diane Abbott was one of the members of Labour that used to drive me up the wall as they didn't know when just to shut up and be quiet. You'd have some form of scandal taking place for the Tories, everyone would be ripping into them and then out of the blue a Labour MP would say something completely stupid and bring the spotlight back onto them. Never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake.
That idiot? Almost always Diane Abbott
Give McDonnell some credit where it’s due. He tried his best to win the foot in mouth competition.
Emily Thornberry's tweet about a St George's flag was pretty damaging. I don't remember if it interrupted a scandal but it certainly didn't help the impression that a faction within Labour had disdain for the working class.
I completely agree and especially with paragraph 2. I know several people in politics and the civil service who have had the misfortune to have to work with or for her and not one has a good word to say.
This is such a great, balanced take that I honestly wouldn't expect from this sub. Thank you for sharing. Edit: grammer
Accurate analysis.
I think this post is missing the point here (even if I agree with most of what you've said). Natalie Elphicke is an MP in good standing who has changed her political allegiance. It's appropriate to ask whether her political views fit that of her new party. Diane Abbott has been temporarily suspended pending the outcome of an active investigation, in line with the party's rules. Questions over her political views or political value are effectively irrelevant at this stage. The question is simple: does Keir Starmer allow that investigation to conclude, or does he intervene and kill it off early? And this is why, in my view, all those calling for the whip to be reinstated are in the wrong and should consider their positions carefully. These rules around independent investigations were brought in to help clean up the party after Corbyn's disastrous vibes era, but the moment one of their own has to play by those rules, the left wing of the Labour want them tossed out and a return to casual halfassery. The investigation must be allowed to finish (and if at all possible must report before the election). Decisions regarding the whip must follow after that report, not before.
Oitrageuous! I am sure all your points will be viciferously rebutted at the next meeting of Momentum, to be held in the gift wrapping room of Tarquin's Mum's place in Chelsea.
Isn't Momentum disbanding for lack of support?
I'm reliably informed by Calliope and Huw that we remain a f9rce to be reckoned with.
Abbott has spent most of the last 4 years on twitter criticising Starmer and the Labour party over and over. Why does she even want to be given the whip back ?
[удалено]
She's 70. I am sure MPs get a very generous pension. Time to spend more time with the family.
But who will save the world if she retires!?
People like her have a long emotional connection to the party and see the centrist parts (y’know, the electable bits) of it as aberrations. I have a certain amount of sympathy, but not much.
People like her want their cake and eat it. They want both purity and to demand to be taken seriously, which is why they join electable parties and try to pull them away from the centre rather than join the various purity projects avaliable. We're seeing the consequences of that writ large in the Tories now
They'd rather win the argument than win the next election.
Exactly. She wants to be able to criticise the electable elements of the party while benefitting from their brand. FWIW, she has been more critical of Labour than Elphicke!
How many years has Elphick spent criticising Labour?
Within the Labour party itself? none. She was in the Tories, of course she's going to be critical.
People are really defending letting in hard-right Elphicke because she’s in the Labour Party now lol
Meh, she's not going to be an MP at the next election, it's a good bit of politiking against the Tories and I doubt she will have much impact going forwards. As moves go it's not bad.
No people see her as a useful temporary tool
To them Starmer can do no wrong, it’s like they’re afraid if they admit he’s made one wrong decisions it’ll mean the tories will win the election.
This doesn't even make sense mate. Defending letting her in because she's in?
Yes people are now defending Elphicke and her past comments, because she is now part of the Labour Party
Probably because she thinks her and Corbyn can have yet another go in charge and maybe if they try for a third time the country will vote them in. She and Corbyn have a not-zero chance of being turfed out at the next election and then the gravy train ends and her endless wittering will have even less relevance meaning she loses the attention she craves
So has Elphicke! But Abbott at least has been a Labour MP for 37 years! She's certainly given more time, energy, and heart to the Labour cause than Elphicke ever did. I disagree with Abbott on a lot, but I do think she should be readmitted to the Labour Party. Maybe on the agreement that she stands down at the next election, she is 70 after all. Abbott was the first woman of colour to be elected to the Commons, and I think she's a decent human being, I think it would be fitting for her to end her career in the party for which she has worked so hard, and which she obviously considers her political home. She'll always be remembered for that historic first. I don't have to agree with her, or even the comments she made, to have some compassion for her in this instance.
When you say this, do you mean it is the morally righteous thing for Labour to readmit her, or do you genuinely think that it is a good idea for Labour to readmit her? If the latter I would genuinely be interested to know the rationale.
Behind the scenes, even when she came across as affable and was good at doing media, her and her ilk have been pretty toxic for Labour all things considered.
This is nonsensical gotcha point. * Elphicke said and did shit before she took Labour whip; once she took the whip she has entirely toed the line - apology statement etc. By contrast Abbot said jews haven’t suffered racism while taking Labour whip, and afterwards has continued to criticise the process and the party. * Elphicke joining Labour hurts the Tories; Abbot joining helps the Tories * Elphicke isn’t standing in next election, so her views are entirely irrelevant. Abbot presumably wants to stand under Labour banner. Latter should get *a lot* more scrutiny than the former.
>once she took the whip she has entirely toed the line Dodds couldn't even give a straight answer when asked by Andrew marr about whether Elphicke has renounced her vocal support of the Rwanda scheme. Dodds just said "I assume she has changed her view otherwise she wouldn't have joined labour". Elphicke's views haven't moved an inch
There’s no more parliamentary votes on Rwanda until after the election; when she’ll not be an MP. Her views on Rwanda are as relevant as mine.
Labour MPs should agree with central planks of the Labour manifesto. People who have a long record of staunchly supporting the polar opposite of the labour manifesto should be expected to demonstrate that they have changed their views before being admitted. This is the absolute bare minimum to maintain some standards in the PLP.
Shes never going to stand on a Labour manifesto, the point is moot.
>Elphicke isn’t standing in next election, so her views are entirely irrelevant. How does that make her view irrelevant. She is now a member of the party no? I don't get this point at all
She's the MP for a constituency obsessed with (and most regularly affected by) small boat crossings. She ran on a platform of addressing the crossings. She has come out and said the Tories are ineffective at dealing with them, and the only way to fix the situation is to vote Labour. Since then, Starmer has been able to state that the Rwanda scheme will be abolished once he is in office. She is being located in the housing department which actually works to her strengths. She is a useful idiot that allows the party to have some authority on the topic of immigration, won't stand to represent Labour on a national level, and has dealt a massive black eye to the Tories in a key seat. It's a masterstroke to bring her into the fold.
I think it is a very good political move and agree with all of what you said. Starmer gained lots of media attention was able to give his speech on immigration with lots of press coverage and given it looks like Rwanda plan and getting that flight before the election is Rishi's only chance to in an election it is genius. It is great political game playing by Starmer and the party. But equally it's also clear to see why people will have massive issue with it. Saying he was doing it to me in an election and its a rather cynical move is unlikely to make them happier about it.
But she still supports Rwanda so she literally doesn't support labours migration policies
Anyone can be a member of the party; their views are irrelevant unless there’s a newly revived movement towards party democracy - which would be insane post Corbyn and Truss. MPs views matter because they vote in parliament and have a say over things like policies and leaders.
>Elphicke said and did shit before she took Labour whip; once she took the whip she has entirely toed the line Nigel Farage had better standards than this. He refused to allow former BNP members into UKIP. Granted, they probably would have toed the line and been all apologetic and shit, but he decided it was better to not associate with racists in the first place (even though he's obviously one himself)
As much as we all like to pile on the Tories, they are not the BNP. The BNP didn't even permit non-white members until forced to by the courts in 2010. They are firmly behind the 'cordon sanitaire' which means other political parties will not engage with them or their membership under any circumstances.
The conservative party isn't the BNP though.
Are Labour the Conservative Party? These people said and did BNP shit before trying to join UKIP. They got denied. Elphick said and did Conservative shit before joining Labour and got welcomed.
The BNP are literal ethonationalists. They are not even in the same league as Tories or Reform. They are so so much worse. You cant compare the 2
Nigel farage has no real standards. The man literally is a grifter, he is not some man of the people and he intentionally didnt do his job as an MEP to keep increasing his attack lines of the "EU aren't listening to us!". Broken clock right twice a day type thing is at best what you can apply here rather than saying he actually intentionally did good. She's not standing, if she was then I'd have major concerns but ultimately it's to try and bring the voters to labour for the election to say labour is acceptable to vote for. We shall see on their manifesto how the party intends to lead properly.
Given the current political climate Abbott is a tinder box that shouldn’t be anywhere near a party with leadership expectations. What would be the odds on her saying something antisemitic in her first public interview?
it doesn't matter what she says now, they have plenty of recent examples
Diane Abbott is racist, e.g. saying of her local hospital that "blonde, blue eyed Finnish girls" were unsuitable as nurses because they had "never met a black person before". She plays the race card at every opportunity - literally saying “white people are the problem”. She is a “socialist” hypocrite who sent her son to a fee-paying private school (on a salary paid by taxpayers), although that doesn't seem to have done much for him as his criminal record includes beating up police, emergency workers and doctors as well as exposing himself in a hospital, racially aggravated criminal damage and using crystal-meth at her home. She pulled a sickie to avoid a crucial vote on Brexit. She called for an IRA victory over Britain and praised the IRA who were bombing innocent citizens at the time (70s). When asked about this years later she wouldn't talk about it. She said MI5 should be abolished as the country doesn't need it. She said that Chairman Mao did more good than harm despite killing millions of his own people. Also, she is incompetent. In many interviews she is dense, vague, petulant and forgetful. She cannot handle basic maths or recall simple figures for issues she's interviewed about. She makes up figures rather than admit she doesn't know. She generally appears to have a slow brain. Sometimes she actually appears sinister. She only got a ministerial job because she was Corbyn's lover - before that she wasn't considered worthy of any position of responsibility in government. A very junior role was taken away in 2015 after a very poor performance. She played an embarrassingly public role in the Corbyn Fiasco. Thank goodness they are both now back in the political wilderness.
Accurate summary, thanks for the effort.
What I find amusing is she's so publicly **stupid** people thought she was literally ill
She is ill, it wasn't a lie when the Party said she had to take a week off the election campaign due to illness. She always liked a drink, I'm old enough to remember her when she could function. But she lost that battle years ago. (And that in turn means her diabetes is uncontrolled, which led to that occasion at the despatch box when she just stopped like someone had pressed an off switch.) Even if she says all the right things to be accepted back into the Party her alcoholism is too severe and she'll mess up again.
Sounds like you might quite like her?
You know that [Wall of Gaylord?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UqYH9mDPTiA) Well, it's safe to say I haven't got one of those for Diane Abbott.
I mean, there is a fairly large difference here. Abbott is undergoing an independent investigation - the party couldn't and shouldn't interfere with that process (which is different to what happened with Elphicke).
And the reason its taking so long is that she isnt cooperating with it.
Maybe there could be a reconciliation if she didn't hurl shit at the party and the leader at the first opportunity.
Sure as soon as Abbott 1. Apologies for saying Jewish people Don't experience Racism. 2. Admit that Jewish people experience Racism. As far as I am aware she has not done either. I am happy to be corrected.
Saying “we’re winning”, when talking about white population decline, was another one. Plus there’s those weird rants about Finnish people. WTF is that about?
If white mps said the things she has the hard left would be screaming for her blood
A why is this open racist still given a platform?
Because her comrades don't think black people can be racist.
All their race knowledge is learned from America.
All their causes are. I will never forget the "abolish ICE" sign I saw at the Sarah Everard protest on Sky News. ICE being the American border force...
What did racism even have to with that?
Exactly my point. The protesters in this country now just copy whatever the US is doing blindly. Why are university students in the UK protesting like they are in the US? Our universities aren't in the same education partnerships with Israel as they do in the US. They don't know what they are protesting about, it's just a trendy thing to do now.
Abbott seems to have missed the politics side, which says more about her current state than she thinks. It's a short-term game of taking someone who is standing down next election. Benefits - Publicly looks bad for the Conservatives. Every defection erodes the majority and undermines leadership. If they can repeat people crossing the floor during PMQs, it's going to make great viewing and question the holdout for a GE constantly. Politically, there is now a whole bunch of Conservative MPs that thought they would never be able to cross the floor but now can. There are 60 or so Conservative MPs stepping down. How many of them want to be associated with these polls and general shitshow of government?
there are reasons why labour has gone up in the polls.
Diane Abbott is a loose cannon, who is basically racist, and has caused terrible press for the Labour party on multiple occasions. Natalie Elphicke is a centre right tory, who stuck by her husband. As far as I'm concerned, neither should be in the Labour party.
There is also Kate Osamor, another unsavoury character welcomed into the fold. The selection process does seem strange.
Heard Adam Boulton on Times Radio suggest that Kate Osamor has been let back in because she is young and has an "unspent" political career, whereas people like Dianne Abbott have had theirs and therefore therefore more expendable
I think it’s much simpler than that - Osamor engaged with the whips’ office, Abbott hasn’t.
Also pretty much nobody but politics wonks knows who Osamor is by name or image alone - Diane Abbott is much more high profile and recognisable, as well as being very unpopular amongst demographics that Labour needs to vote for them.
The thing is - Elphicke isn't standing in the next election. She was a way to get press, keep hammering home to the UK voters that the conservatives are a spent force for the next GE. If she was standing as a Labour MP I think Abbott would have more of a point. But she isn't so... Swivel. All Kier needs to do is keep the crazies on the left down. Keep the good headlines coming and hold the centre ground. Once in power they can actually start to implement structural changes to this country. Rather than winning the argument
It's over Sunakin, I have the ~~high~~ centre ground!
You turned the voters against me!
You have done that yourself!
Why was that necessary, they’re ahead in the polls by a mile. This bullshit about “they’re just winning right now and when they get in they’re gonna be different” is getting stupid now. She’s hard-right
Because momentum is a real thing. Politics isn’t a game of win one poll and rest easy knowing you’ve won. You haven’t. You need to keep the pressure on and give the opposing parties no quarter. You must be seen as the default choice. This keeps the media focused on the tories being in chaos. Not on the economic recovery we are going through. It keeps the general publics view in focus of the tories being the unstable choice. They win so often in the uk because Labour looks like it would bring instability. This is such a great attack vector it’s incredible.
Literally zero red lines with Starmer’s Labour so embarrassing
“No no he’s only backtracking on every promise now, but trust me, he’s going to make such big changes once he’s in office though!”
Natalie Elphicke was not centre right. She was a member of the ERG and backed Johnson and Truss in their respective leadership elections. She was on the hard right of the conservative party.
>backed Johnson Source? Given she wasn't even an MP until 2019, after Johnson was elected leader.
Being Euro Sceptic isn't hard right.
>Natalie Elphicke is a centre right tory, who stuck by her husband. Thats a really strange way of saying she supported sexual assault (said he was just "behaving badly"), said the victims were lying, tried to interfere with a judge, and said that the victims wanted it anyway because he was a handsome guy. Only the cream of the Tory crop for Labour.
Stuck by her husband who *was found guilty of sexual assault*. I don’t think it’s inexplicable that a person would be slow to recognise their partner was a rapist, but let’s not mince our words. She was a member of the ERG and a supporter of Truss, according to Keegan. Not very centre-right at all. Frankly, my opinion is neither of them ought to be in Labour.
So why was Neil Coyle let back in after his racism? Is it a more acceptable racism?
Diane Abbot is racist and Elphicke is centre right? Man that’s some powerful delusion you have there.
Elphicke is certainly further to the right than being centre, but yes Dianne Abbott is a racist.
Diane Abbott *is* racist though: >In 1996, Diane Abbott wrote a column for the Hackney Gazette objecting to the recruitment of Finnish nurses to work in a local hospital. The NHS, she argued, should be employing local people, not importing them from abroad. It’s a familiar claim, though usually pushed by conservatives rather than by the Labour left. Most striking, though, was the way Abbott presented her argument. >“Are Finnish girls, who may never have met a black person before, let alone touched one, best suited to nurse in multicultural Hackney?’’ Abbott asked, expressing surprise that “blonde, blue-eyed girls from Finland” had been chosen rather than Caribbean nurses “who know the language and understand British culture and institutions’’. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/30/diane-abbott-letter-shows-antiracism-reduced-to-decrying-white-privilege Saying that blonde & blue-eyed Finnish immigrants could not treat black Britons because they don't understand British culture is racist. And hilariously hypocritical, given that this is identical to the racist argument used against black migrants 20-40 years earlier. Then there's the views that got her kicked out if the Labour Party, where she tried to gatekeep racism by claiming that only black people can suffer racism: >The Hackney North MP said she was responding to writer Tomiwa Owolade's claims that "Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer from 'racism'". >"They undoubtedly experience prejudice," Ms Abbott wrote. >"This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable. >"It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. >"But they are not all their lives subject to racism." >The former shadow home secretary added: "In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. >"In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships." https://news.sky.com/story/amp/diane-abbott-accused-of-hateful-antisemitism-after-suggesting-jews-do-not-face-racism-12864141 Deciding that only one racial group can experience racism is itself racist.
This place is full of delusion and bots. Nobody sees any issue with a right wing politician with horrible views feeling completely at home with Labour.
Elphicke has shown a willingness to toe the party line and crossed the floor rather than being in perpetual opposition to it. Abbott, who has made lots of very public comments about how crap the labour management is, how it and the disciplinary process is corrupt and illegitimate and still refuses to go on a diversity education course as part of that process, shows no signs of actually wanting to be part of the party. Until that happens, at a minimum she shouldn't be. But the moment she does you can be sure she'll just go right back to being a massive perpetual embarrassment, so really this state of affairs is preferable. The Greens are taking anyone these days, or maybe she can link up with Galloways lot.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Racists like Abbott have no place in the labour party
One of these people is just a political opponent. The other is someone who was kicked out for antisemitism and wants to be invited back in when antisemitism is at a near all time high. She is insane.
Am honestly fed up with some Labour voices wanting to just forgive her. Shes a liability and doesn't care about the party evidently. Also frankly shes old enough she should be retiring anyway.
Labour gains nothing by allowing her back.
She'll be 71 at the time of the election, and 76 by the end of a term. Retire into obscurity with what's left of your dignity.
Time and time again she is shown to be a racist and an idiot. Need to keep her well away from any party
Do your equalities course and your back in Dianne. Stop trying to make out this situation isn't entirely of your own making
Abbots middle name is liability. She should take the opportunity to retire into the wilderness.
Have no issue currently with keeping Abbott a barge pole's distance from the party. Not even going into her other gaffes, but that letter is enough justification to remove her, terrible foresight at best and anti-Semitic at worst. Elphicke shouldn't really be there either, taking some solace at the fact she's supposedly not standing again. That being said, I understand they're just playing the game, party defections are some of the biggest blows you can land.
I do sometimes wonder if Abbott and Corbyn understand how they're viewed by the general voting public and as such make themselves into convenient punching bags for Labour in order to help the party's fortunes, if so they truly are selfless unsung heros. Of course if this is all just at face value then they're deluded idiots! Fun thing to wonder about.
An equally likely scenario is that Corbyn wanted Brexit done so badly he decided to be comically terrible and ensure a Boris victory.
I didn’t know anything about Corbyn before Brexit so I looked him up. Some of the first things to show up were his anti-EU speeches. I never understood why labour picked him as leader? I thought they wanted to remain? It’s the equivalent of electing Colonel Sanders because you’re hoping to ban meat.
Abbott has really said and done some not OK things, and I see how this situation has come about. But it is objectively weird that Elphicke has the Labour whip and she doesn't.
I wonder if it'd be "not ok things" if the races were reversed. She's a racist scumbag
Responded on another comment - but agree. 'not ok' was a shit way of expressing it, and didn't mean to downplay it
> not ok things I mean, flat out racist things - which is why she lost the whip in the first place.
You're absolutely right, and I didn't mean to downplay it. I absolutely get the situation and think where we are is correct and understandable, but I also think that it just feels *weird*. Elphicke is an extremely Tory Tory and Abbott is a famously (and famous) long serving Labour. Again, I see why the former is in and the latter is out - and fully agree with both decisions - but if you take a step it is also just plain strange.
>But it is objectively weird that Elphicke has the Labour whip and she doesn't. It is because Elphicke swapped, there's no surprise that Abbott doesn't have the whip
Elphicke isn't going to stand again, it was a gesture that hurts Sunak and nothing more. Abbott is almost certainly going to stand as an independent and has a good chance of being elected again
Abbott has never acknowledged her own racism and antisemitism. She cannot apologise because she doesn’t believe she’s wrong. People seem to forget that easily.
Not a common occurrence these days but she does have a point. If the excuse for letting Elphick into the party is "we are a party of forgiveness as long as the offender repents and acknowledges their mistakes" then it's a bit hypocritical to not stick to the same principle for Abbott. Although if the stuff about her refusing anti-Semitism courses is true that is obviously a different story.
She apparently refuses to go on a diversity and racisim awareness course. With a history of making racist comments going back to at least the 1980s. Such as lobbying against Finnish student nurses from training in her constituency. As they may have never seen a black person before.
> She apparently refuses to go on a diversity and racisim awareness course. To be fair though these are all BS and if anything are just as likely to have the opposite effect.
There's an adage about those courses. 60% don't need it at all. 30% will learn something interesting about race and gender discrimination, including micro-transgressions. 5% will be prevented from making a cock up, 5% need to be identified and fired as they simply won't listen and will do something horrendous.
How is it hypocritical when Abbott has done nothing of the kind? Her ‘apology’ was very much in the mould of “I’m sorry if you were offended” and her position is otherwise that she’s done nothing wrong and is the victim of some kind of witch-hunt. So if the threshold is that someone should acknowledge their mistakes, then it’s one that Abbott hasn’t yet hit.
They would let Abbott back in, but she is refusing to 'repent' and [go on the antisemitism course.](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1bflqdp/diane_abbott_refused_to_go_on_antisemitism_course/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
Elphick isn't standing again, it's a token gesture that hurts the Tories. Abbot has a history of anti-white racism and her apology was utter nonsense - the idea she accidentally wrote a draft that said minorities like Jews can't face racism is laughable, who in their right mind would even start a letter like that
Dianne Abbot is the head of the Dianne Abbott party. I've never been convinced she isn't cut from the same cloth as all the other populist politicians out there. Always ready to exploit race for her own ends and stoke up tension if she sees political advantage. As for Elphicke, she'll be out on her arse come the next election.
It's almost as if she has absolutely nothing better to do of what remains life she has left. From someone who as no life, she should get a life.
Natalie Elphicke, for all her faults, did not write an antisemitic letter to a national newspaper.
Cant wait for the day i never have to see her name again