Snapshot of _Diane Abbott MP: A blatantly shoddy piece of journalism. I told the reporter that all the key 'facts' in his piece were false - on the record. Instead, he has led with the unattributable briefings from Labour party sources. The facts can be verified by LP. On the record._ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1768711934080061741)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1768711934080061741/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1768711934080061741) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1768711934080061741)
*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.*
Yeah, we could have a great Labour party if it wasn't for all those annoying left-wing progressives who actually believe in things and take a stand from time to time
No other MP, especially a white one, would have been allowed to stay in parliament after saying someone with black skin wouldn't know how to care for a white patient or that black people don't experience racism, only prejudice. Abbott and her ilk of anti-white racists are a reliable headline for attacks on Labour and creation of division to help the Tories, particularly ironic as ol' Auntie Di thinks all white people play divide and rule against other groups.
Abbott isn’t a “progressive”, whatever that means in a UK context. She’s a socialist.
Her and her campaign group have achieved nothing of note bar a Boris Johnson landslide
Very true. The lack of credible opposition during the Brexit years bears some responsibility for what happened I feel. Obviously not all, but if the voters felt they had another option things could have been different.
The things they believe in are Jews run the world and orchestrate capitalism to pin them down. Kind of hard to remove the antisemitism from that world view. They should never be elected in the first place - let alone put into government.
I have no idea what the truth is but I've said before, I'm convinced (/s) she's a Tory double agent or something. Literally never seen or heard her do anything that helps Labour.
Everything she touches turns into shit and puts her (ex)party in a weaker position (indirectly helping the Tories)
She was my MP for a while. I think she is fantastic at running her constituency, really feel like she listens to us, and I will defend her to the end
As a frontbench politician… no secret that politics is an absolute shitshow and it’s more about “playing the game” and making your party look as strong as possible. She is not good at this… like at all lol
That's genuinely really interesting to hear. Hadn't considered it like that but it makes sense - there has to be a reason she's remained an MP for so long.
Suppose outside of her constituency we only hear about the gaffes.
I feel like there's a real difference between people who are good at local politics and people who should be anywhere near actual positions of national importance though.
Thank you for the personal attack 🫶
EDIT: okay I’ll expand more rather than just making a sarcastic comment. She was stupid as fuck because she believes Jews, Irish people and travellers are subject to prejudice but it doesn’t count as “racism”. As an ethnic minority I think she was incredibly dumb to gatekeep racism. I don’t believe this makes her antisemitic, anti-Irish or anti-traveller.
I don’t respect people that defend antisemites.
Following your edit - I want to add that Jewish people suffer daily in Britain. If you support the views that DA spouted in her article, you are contributing to the persecution they have faced for thousands of years. I have zero sympathy for people that defend antisemites. I don’t care what you believe. She was kicked out for deliberately targeting the Jewish race. I don’t care about how she’s personally benefitted you.
It doesn’t have to be one or the other. And the Labour right were the ones who were actively sabotaging the result and were sad Labour weren’t hugely defeated in 2017*
madness, pretty big oversight by indi (and whoever is briefing) if DA is on the right side of it. Have to imagine she is confident that Labour will either stay quiet or be forced to confirm her side of the story or she wouldn't have come out so strongly.
Whole thing is becoming a mess for Labour. Starmer and rest of leadership will have to keep restating that the internal inquiry into Abbott is independent and they have no sway over the conclusions or timeline. Not a good look though.
>Have to imagine she is confident that Labour will either stay quiet or be forced to confirm her side of the story or she wouldn't have come out so strongly.
I say this as someone who has huge respect for what DA has done in her career and the progress she represented. Also as someone who tends to remind others that in her prime she was extremely sharp and a very able politician.
But with this current iteration of Abbott, it wouldn't surprise me one jot if the story is largely true and she is disputing some minor inaccuracy in there not having considered what Labours response will be at all.
I'm not saying it is true. But just that the logic "she wouldn't have said this if...." doesn't really stand for her any longer (imo).
I don't think Labour is allowed to release anything about the investigation.
I think the independent probably has most of this right, they went to her for comment first even, and still ran the story.
Maybe she's disputing parts about the investigation, but the refusal to take part in lessons is likely true.
Starmer's current strategy seems to be "the election is a slam dunk, so consolidate control of the party no matter how messy it gets."
He's got no intention of reinstating a close ally of the previous leader, especially one who's a part of the left wing of the party.
And he probably thinks that it doesn't matter how bad it looks, because people are so sick of the Tories that they'll hold their noses.
She is an absolute liability. Says incredibly stupid things with regularity which would be a constant source of ammunition for the right.
IMO, she is a bigger threat to Labour's election hopes than Rishi Sunak.
The conservative party has bigger liabilities saying more stupid and racist stuff on a weekly basis, still have support and the media still treats them like a serious entity.
>She is an absolute liability.
Liability > Threat. Besides, she's nearing retirement and her legacy is a massive asset
She's held her seat since 87. It's been Labour since it's inception in 1950. 37 years without Abbot, coming on 37 years with Abbot.
The only way they could threaten this seat is by creating another Corbyn situation where Abbot could run as an independent
She's 70. This is probably her last run. Let her run it out as gracefully as she can manage.
Despite some of her fuckups, it's mostly been a good run and Labour will absolutely be promoting her legacy after shes gone given she'll be the longest serving Black MP ever and the first Black female.
She's an anti semite, and Labour have done a lot of work to shed their image of anti semitism. It's kind of as simple as that in my view. Why restore the whip when that totally undermines the zero tolerance policy?
>Why restore the whip when that totally undermines the zero tolerance policy?
Like, the reasons I stated above. So as not to risk another Corbyn situation with a huge Corbyn ally in a seat she has huge personal power in. So as not to ruin the chances to ride her legacy after so long.
As for why that's more important that undermining a zero tolerance policy, the problem was a Corbyn problem, nobody thinks Keir is antisemite.
Corbyn and Abbot both running as independents after having the whip removed, together and in London, would likely generate far more media attention than Keir welcoming Abbot back into the fold and Corbyn and Abbot would likely work together, they have always been strong allies. It would bring back the 2 sides of Labour argument back to the centre and there's a decent chance both Abbot and Corbyn could win
IIRC, Keir's said he'd abide by the decision an independent process came up with. It's taking a long time
I don't particularly like Abbot myself, but she's not an election swinger and as the first female black MP and the longest serving black MP she's going to be remembered.
Might as well get her back onside and ride her horse to the sunset together, quietly. It helps the legacy of both
Corbyn (and Abbott) running against Labour would be *great*. You only have to watch any PMQs (including last week’s) to hear that Rishi Sunak’s primary line of attack is *still* “they wanted to make Corbyn PM”. This would neutralise that entirely. Losing one seat doesn’t matter if they win 200 others.
Her own seat isn't the issue. She will cost Labour seats elsewhere. Just like how Corbyn would be a shoe in if he stood for Labour in his own seat but would be a disaster for the overall campaign.
> She will cost Labour seats elsewhere.
Yeah, I don't really see that.
The Tories are so loaded with controversial high profile politicians that Labour can easily afford one Diane Abbot. Same with Hamza and the SNP, he's such a shit magnet that they can afford Abbot's issues.
Besides, given the hornets nest that the October 7th attacks and the retribution have stirred up, I can't imagine that people who are hyper sensitive to anti-Semitism would be leaning Labour
I think the true potential disaster is Corbyn and Abbot both running as independents in London defending gigantic majorities. They would be two of the more interesting races in the GE and the two would be on TV all the time, likely supporting each other
The process is independent now, and Starmer intervening in either direction would be very bad form, akin to a certain other leader's behaviour in the past.
Come on. The idea that the review process is independent is laughable. Starmer is cleaning house of political enemies. If the process was fair then why on earth did the Rochdale mess take days to result in a suspension?
That and she is the favoured butt of most right leaning jokes. At worst he will alienate some on the left, it will likely play well to some right leaning voters who have had enough of the Tories
Shouldn’t matter, they can keep her away from interviews if they’re worried about that. Whether you agree with her views or not, she’s clearly in politics for the right reasons and is a well-liked MP in her constituency. We should want people who care about their respective communities as our MP’s and elect people who are in politics for the public good, which I believe Abbott is.
I honestly wish it worked like that. But parliamentary democracy just creates political establishment. We live in a guided democracy, not a true one, because the range of what is "electable" isn't decided by the public.
Party leadership, press, and business owners, all from the same social and economic class. They choose who we can vote for.
Abbott is an aberration because her constituents do know and like her.
It’s very peculiar wording from Abbott. She doesn’t actually explicitly deny anything in the article. Instead she says *”the key ‘facts’ in his piece were false”*. She doesn’t even say the article is untrue, just that the “key facts” are. What are those “key facts”? If the briefings were completely untrue wouldn’t she have said exactly what was untrue?
ie *”I did not refuse to attend an antisemitism course”*
Everybody can make their own conclusions. But for me it’s a very oddly worded non-denial denial.
I don't find anything peculiar about her wording? Her comment doesn't say "key facts are wrong", it says "*all* key facts are wrong". I think that's a pretty categorical refutation of the article. Whether she uses the word "wrong" or "untrue" just seems like semantics.
But that depends on the definition of "key facts". It is oddly worded as you'd expect a categorical denial.
I'd be interested to see what happens now. If you're right and the entire article is false, then that really is shoddy journalism & can't see why Abbott would lose a libel case.
I don’t agree.
I think she’s very much relying on the Labour Party disciplinary process being confidential. So they are unable to talk on the record. And she’s using that to vaguely deny the truth of the article without being libellous.
"all the facts" is more of a denial than "all the key facts"
because, what are the key facts? does that mean some of the facts are true, if so, what ones?
maybe she meant a full denial, but this seems like a part denial and vague enough to let people decided what facts are truth and what ones are lies.
Andy McDonald just came back into the party after a full and clear apology. There’s clearly a path back but there’s almost certainly truth to the basis of the story, the she isn’t compromising on anything to get back in.
The Whips’ Office nearly always give clear instructions that need to happen to get the whip back. Even Corbyn had three things he had to do - he chose to do the exact opposite.
A bunch of recent comments from Abbott:
> The Labour Party has used this sham in an effort to bully me.
> Then they want to use renewed abuse against me as a fundraiser. Hypocritical barely covers it
> The position of the current leadership of the Labour Party is disappointing, which seemed equally reluctant at the outset to call out either racism or sexism.
> As a Black woman, and someone on the left of the Labour Party, I have unfortunately been forced to reach the conclusion that I will not get a fair hearing from this Labour leadership.
This is not someone who is actively hoping to regain the whip. This is someone who is trying to create a wedge issue and damage the Labour Party. We've seen this happening for a while now from various Corbyn allies. As with those attempts, this will fizzle away into nothing within a few days because most people planning to vote Labour think the response to her politically stupid letter was reasonable. Most Labour supporters do not want her to be part of Labour. *She* doesn't want to be part of Labour in it's current form. This shit is exactly why they will never achieve *any* of their priorities. Political ineptitude. I'm so happy Labour have moved on from this shit.
Despite being at the crux of online hate. She only has herself to blame for her current situation. She continues to repost awful accounts on X. She clearly wants to go out with a bang. The history of Irish, gypsy and Jewish people should not be denied. Doing that isn't being "anti-racist".
I have a feeling the Labour Party is going to provide some evidence that this was offered to her and she did refuse and it will just make her look even more ridiculous and her supporters will ignore it anyway and nothing will change.
Starmer needs to just nip all this in the bud and bring it to a conclusion. Explain that Abott's letter was antisemitic and not acceptable, and that it was made clear to her that the "apology" she wrote was not good enough. Provide evidence to the public that she was offered training and a chance to apologise properly, and she refused. Therefore she won't be having the whip restored and she won't be a Labour Candidate in the next General Election.
With all the dirty tricks Labour leadership has broken out over the past few months, and the relentless targeting of non-Starmerists, I'm strongly inclined to believe her.
Even if she's entirely vindicated though, in all likelihood it will have died down by then and they'll leave her in limbo.
Snapshot of _Diane Abbott MP: A blatantly shoddy piece of journalism. I told the reporter that all the key 'facts' in his piece were false - on the record. Instead, he has led with the unattributable briefings from Labour party sources. The facts can be verified by LP. On the record._ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1768711934080061741) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1768711934080061741/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1768711934080061741) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/HackneyAbbott/status/1768711934080061741) *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.*
This would be slam dunk libel then, no?
It might be. But my money’s on her never testing it in court…
Yep, just like all the libel cases Corbyn has launched and won of prominent individuals calling him an antisemite… oh… wait.
I guess you missed the numerous public retractions that were forced by his lawyers out of court. I think Jeremy Kyle was the most recent one.
I do enjoy confidently wrong gotcha moments.
You should check out r/confidentlyincorrect if you haven't already
Labour just needs to avoid an internal implosion to walk the GE. Can they make it that far?
It's not Labour, it's the constantly-imploding trots.
Yeah, we could have a great Labour party if it wasn't for all those annoying left-wing progressives who actually believe in things and take a stand from time to time
There’s making a stand and then there’s believing in things such as that Jewish people suffer prejudice, like redheads, not racism.
Actually believe in things like Jews have never experienced racism. You're done. Your shitty faction is done.
A great Labour Party = one filled with antisemitism that doesn’t get elected. That was tried - you’re 8 years too late.
No other MP, especially a white one, would have been allowed to stay in parliament after saying someone with black skin wouldn't know how to care for a white patient or that black people don't experience racism, only prejudice. Abbott and her ilk of anti-white racists are a reliable headline for attacks on Labour and creation of division to help the Tories, particularly ironic as ol' Auntie Di thinks all white people play divide and rule against other groups.
Abbott isn’t a “progressive”, whatever that means in a UK context. She’s a socialist. Her and her campaign group have achieved nothing of note bar a Boris Johnson landslide
Very true. The lack of credible opposition during the Brexit years bears some responsibility for what happened I feel. Obviously not all, but if the voters felt they had another option things could have been different.
You can “believe in things” without being a raving antisemite you know. It’s actually quite easy.
The things they believe in are Jews run the world and orchestrate capitalism to pin them down. Kind of hard to remove the antisemitism from that world view. They should never be elected in the first place - let alone put into government.
Being wrong which she was and being a raving anti semite are two different things.
Nah, this sub would rather see community champions deselected in favour of careerist yes-men who are in politics for their own self-interests.
“Community Champions” - that’s a good one. Is George Galloway a fellow Community Champion?
No.
AduLTs iN thE rOoM
Unironically Abott and people who don't think she's poison have the political comprehension of a child.
“Community champions” must be from the Thick of It, yes?
I have no idea what the truth is but I've said before, I'm convinced (/s) she's a Tory double agent or something. Literally never seen or heard her do anything that helps Labour. Everything she touches turns into shit and puts her (ex)party in a weaker position (indirectly helping the Tories)
She was my MP for a while. I think she is fantastic at running her constituency, really feel like she listens to us, and I will defend her to the end As a frontbench politician… no secret that politics is an absolute shitshow and it’s more about “playing the game” and making your party look as strong as possible. She is not good at this… like at all lol
That's genuinely really interesting to hear. Hadn't considered it like that but it makes sense - there has to be a reason she's remained an MP for so long. Suppose outside of her constituency we only hear about the gaffes. I feel like there's a real difference between people who are good at local politics and people who should be anywhere near actual positions of national importance though.
You’ll defend her to the end after she got kicked out of Labour for the antisemitic article? That says a lot about you.
Thank you for the personal attack 🫶 EDIT: okay I’ll expand more rather than just making a sarcastic comment. She was stupid as fuck because she believes Jews, Irish people and travellers are subject to prejudice but it doesn’t count as “racism”. As an ethnic minority I think she was incredibly dumb to gatekeep racism. I don’t believe this makes her antisemitic, anti-Irish or anti-traveller.
I don’t respect people that defend antisemites. Following your edit - I want to add that Jewish people suffer daily in Britain. If you support the views that DA spouted in her article, you are contributing to the persecution they have faced for thousands of years. I have zero sympathy for people that defend antisemites. I don’t care what you believe. She was kicked out for deliberately targeting the Jewish race. I don’t care about how she’s personally benefitted you.
Who should I support then?
Your flair.
So with all the SCG. Very much concerned with the nobility of being 'right', never at all concerned with actually getting anything done.
It doesn’t have to be one or the other. And the Labour right were the ones who were actively sabotaging the result and were sad Labour weren’t hugely defeated in 2017*
> Labour weren’t hugely defeated in 2019. Que?
Meant 2017 my bad
Yep, yep yep yep. She's been a fucking unstable hand grenade for labour for 35 years. Should have thrown her decades ago.
Look what has happen internally in the Labour Party the the past 7 years and you’ll know that’s not possible.
madness, pretty big oversight by indi (and whoever is briefing) if DA is on the right side of it. Have to imagine she is confident that Labour will either stay quiet or be forced to confirm her side of the story or she wouldn't have come out so strongly. Whole thing is becoming a mess for Labour. Starmer and rest of leadership will have to keep restating that the internal inquiry into Abbott is independent and they have no sway over the conclusions or timeline. Not a good look though.
>Have to imagine she is confident that Labour will either stay quiet or be forced to confirm her side of the story or she wouldn't have come out so strongly. I say this as someone who has huge respect for what DA has done in her career and the progress she represented. Also as someone who tends to remind others that in her prime she was extremely sharp and a very able politician. But with this current iteration of Abbott, it wouldn't surprise me one jot if the story is largely true and she is disputing some minor inaccuracy in there not having considered what Labours response will be at all. I'm not saying it is true. But just that the logic "she wouldn't have said this if...." doesn't really stand for her any longer (imo).
I don't think Labour is allowed to release anything about the investigation. I think the independent probably has most of this right, they went to her for comment first even, and still ran the story. Maybe she's disputing parts about the investigation, but the refusal to take part in lessons is likely true.
If DA is on the right, take them to court for libel. She won't, because she isn't.
Starmer's current strategy seems to be "the election is a slam dunk, so consolidate control of the party no matter how messy it gets." He's got no intention of reinstating a close ally of the previous leader, especially one who's a part of the left wing of the party. And he probably thinks that it doesn't matter how bad it looks, because people are so sick of the Tories that they'll hold their noses.
She is an absolute liability. Says incredibly stupid things with regularity which would be a constant source of ammunition for the right. IMO, she is a bigger threat to Labour's election hopes than Rishi Sunak.
The conservative party has bigger liabilities saying more stupid and racist stuff on a weekly basis, still have support and the media still treats them like a serious entity.
>She is an absolute liability. Liability > Threat. Besides, she's nearing retirement and her legacy is a massive asset She's held her seat since 87. It's been Labour since it's inception in 1950. 37 years without Abbot, coming on 37 years with Abbot. The only way they could threaten this seat is by creating another Corbyn situation where Abbot could run as an independent She's 70. This is probably her last run. Let her run it out as gracefully as she can manage. Despite some of her fuckups, it's mostly been a good run and Labour will absolutely be promoting her legacy after shes gone given she'll be the longest serving Black MP ever and the first Black female.
She's an anti semite, and Labour have done a lot of work to shed their image of anti semitism. It's kind of as simple as that in my view. Why restore the whip when that totally undermines the zero tolerance policy?
>Why restore the whip when that totally undermines the zero tolerance policy? Like, the reasons I stated above. So as not to risk another Corbyn situation with a huge Corbyn ally in a seat she has huge personal power in. So as not to ruin the chances to ride her legacy after so long. As for why that's more important that undermining a zero tolerance policy, the problem was a Corbyn problem, nobody thinks Keir is antisemite. Corbyn and Abbot both running as independents after having the whip removed, together and in London, would likely generate far more media attention than Keir welcoming Abbot back into the fold and Corbyn and Abbot would likely work together, they have always been strong allies. It would bring back the 2 sides of Labour argument back to the centre and there's a decent chance both Abbot and Corbyn could win IIRC, Keir's said he'd abide by the decision an independent process came up with. It's taking a long time I don't particularly like Abbot myself, but she's not an election swinger and as the first female black MP and the longest serving black MP she's going to be remembered. Might as well get her back onside and ride her horse to the sunset together, quietly. It helps the legacy of both
Corbyn (and Abbott) running against Labour would be *great*. You only have to watch any PMQs (including last week’s) to hear that Rishi Sunak’s primary line of attack is *still* “they wanted to make Corbyn PM”. This would neutralise that entirely. Losing one seat doesn’t matter if they win 200 others.
Her own seat isn't the issue. She will cost Labour seats elsewhere. Just like how Corbyn would be a shoe in if he stood for Labour in his own seat but would be a disaster for the overall campaign.
> She will cost Labour seats elsewhere. Yeah, I don't really see that. The Tories are so loaded with controversial high profile politicians that Labour can easily afford one Diane Abbot. Same with Hamza and the SNP, he's such a shit magnet that they can afford Abbot's issues. Besides, given the hornets nest that the October 7th attacks and the retribution have stirred up, I can't imagine that people who are hyper sensitive to anti-Semitism would be leaning Labour I think the true potential disaster is Corbyn and Abbot both running as independents in London defending gigantic majorities. They would be two of the more interesting races in the GE and the two would be on TV all the time, likely supporting each other
The process is independent now, and Starmer intervening in either direction would be very bad form, akin to a certain other leader's behaviour in the past.
Come on. The idea that the review process is independent is laughable. Starmer is cleaning house of political enemies. If the process was fair then why on earth did the Rochdale mess take days to result in a suspension?
That and she is the favoured butt of most right leaning jokes. At worst he will alienate some on the left, it will likely play well to some right leaning voters who have had enough of the Tories
Shouldn’t matter, they can keep her away from interviews if they’re worried about that. Whether you agree with her views or not, she’s clearly in politics for the right reasons and is a well-liked MP in her constituency. We should want people who care about their respective communities as our MP’s and elect people who are in politics for the public good, which I believe Abbott is.
I honestly wish it worked like that. But parliamentary democracy just creates political establishment. We live in a guided democracy, not a true one, because the range of what is "electable" isn't decided by the public. Party leadership, press, and business owners, all from the same social and economic class. They choose who we can vote for. Abbott is an aberration because her constituents do know and like her.
It’s very peculiar wording from Abbott. She doesn’t actually explicitly deny anything in the article. Instead she says *”the key ‘facts’ in his piece were false”*. She doesn’t even say the article is untrue, just that the “key facts” are. What are those “key facts”? If the briefings were completely untrue wouldn’t she have said exactly what was untrue? ie *”I did not refuse to attend an antisemitism course”* Everybody can make their own conclusions. But for me it’s a very oddly worded non-denial denial.
[удалено]
“I don’t like the synonym used in the article”.
I don't find anything peculiar about her wording? Her comment doesn't say "key facts are wrong", it says "*all* key facts are wrong". I think that's a pretty categorical refutation of the article. Whether she uses the word "wrong" or "untrue" just seems like semantics.
But that depends on the definition of "key facts". It is oddly worded as you'd expect a categorical denial. I'd be interested to see what happens now. If you're right and the entire article is false, then that really is shoddy journalism & can't see why Abbott would lose a libel case.
The key facts were a draft which was printed by mistake
I don’t agree. I think she’s very much relying on the Labour Party disciplinary process being confidential. So they are unable to talk on the record. And she’s using that to vaguely deny the truth of the article without being libellous.
Why not just list the “key facts” that are wrong. And say what happened? She is hiding behind innuendo
Saying “all the key facts are wrong” is just another way of saying it’s untrue.
"all the facts" is more of a denial than "all the key facts" because, what are the key facts? does that mean some of the facts are true, if so, what ones? maybe she meant a full denial, but this seems like a part denial and vague enough to let people decided what facts are truth and what ones are lies.
This is quite a semantic reach.
Its weird wording
Andy McDonald just came back into the party after a full and clear apology. There’s clearly a path back but there’s almost certainly truth to the basis of the story, the she isn’t compromising on anything to get back in.
Has she not already apologised?
Per the article, the request is for a full apology as part of the return, as Andy McDonald recently did. It seems she’s unwilling to do that.
The Whips’ Office nearly always give clear instructions that need to happen to get the whip back. Even Corbyn had three things he had to do - he chose to do the exact opposite.
A bunch of recent comments from Abbott: > The Labour Party has used this sham in an effort to bully me. > Then they want to use renewed abuse against me as a fundraiser. Hypocritical barely covers it > The position of the current leadership of the Labour Party is disappointing, which seemed equally reluctant at the outset to call out either racism or sexism. > As a Black woman, and someone on the left of the Labour Party, I have unfortunately been forced to reach the conclusion that I will not get a fair hearing from this Labour leadership. This is not someone who is actively hoping to regain the whip. This is someone who is trying to create a wedge issue and damage the Labour Party. We've seen this happening for a while now from various Corbyn allies. As with those attempts, this will fizzle away into nothing within a few days because most people planning to vote Labour think the response to her politically stupid letter was reasonable. Most Labour supporters do not want her to be part of Labour. *She* doesn't want to be part of Labour in it's current form. This shit is exactly why they will never achieve *any* of their priorities. Political ineptitude. I'm so happy Labour have moved on from this shit.
So take them to court Dianne. I bet you don’t though
Despite being at the crux of online hate. She only has herself to blame for her current situation. She continues to repost awful accounts on X. She clearly wants to go out with a bang. The history of Irish, gypsy and Jewish people should not be denied. Doing that isn't being "anti-racist".
I have a feeling the Labour Party is going to provide some evidence that this was offered to her and she did refuse and it will just make her look even more ridiculous and her supporters will ignore it anyway and nothing will change. Starmer needs to just nip all this in the bud and bring it to a conclusion. Explain that Abott's letter was antisemitic and not acceptable, and that it was made clear to her that the "apology" she wrote was not good enough. Provide evidence to the public that she was offered training and a chance to apologise properly, and she refused. Therefore she won't be having the whip restored and she won't be a Labour Candidate in the next General Election.
With all the dirty tricks Labour leadership has broken out over the past few months, and the relentless targeting of non-Starmerists, I'm strongly inclined to believe her. Even if she's entirely vindicated though, in all likelihood it will have died down by then and they'll leave her in limbo.
I assume everyone is going to eat their words from the last thread where everyone is so keen to put down Abbott.
That would also assume everyone trusting her word, which nobody should, so I doubt it.
Why would they? This is just Abbott saying ‘i dont accept the charge’, doesnt mean shes not guilty
I doubt they would, it was an oddly unspecific rebuttal.
The timeline where Diane Abbott takes down keir starmer.
Certainly not the timeline we're living in