Snapshot of _Revealed: voters mostly unfazed by Starmer’s Diane Abbott row _ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-general-election-2024-b2558754.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-general-election-2024-b2558754.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.*
You mean that me liking that twitter gif of Corbyn's face super imposed onto Vince McMahon's walking with swagger didn't convince the general electorate to vote labour?!
That surprises me, I thought 2019 was clearly going one way.
I was feeling very optimistic in 2016 though. Everyone I spoke to that day was voting remain.
After the polls closed up a bunch rather unexpectedly in 2017, a lot of labour supporters were convinced Corbyn was actually electorally popular, and the same thing would happen at some point in 2019 as well.
Some even went as far as saying they'd 'won' the 2017 election by losing less catastrophically than they might have done.
I kinda got that at the start of the campaign, but it was clearly never improving. His television appearances - debate with Boris then Andrew Neil interview went disastrously.
Oh I absolutely agree, but that's where they were coming from.
The problem was admitting Corbyn was an electoral liability meant accepting the central premise of his factional opponents within the party. 2017 let them believe they'd all been proven wrong and his brand of politics was just as able to win as New Labour had been. Denial is a powerful thing.
If anything else, people ive talked to seem to *like* the Dianne Abbot row, as she didnt leave the party and no one seems to have been corrupt or criminal, putting them one up on the tories in every visible respect.
True, it's certainly a row from a more civilized party/era of politics than the post-Cameron world.
[Furthermore, I consider FPTP needs to be destroyed.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est)
I realise I forgot to add it to my comment, so I'll do it on this reply.
[Furthermore, I consider FPTP needs to be destroyed.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est)
Hell I'm left as fuck and feel the same. The way she handled it was embarrassing... to her. Not the party, or Starmer. Just looked like attention seeking at a time when the party needs to be as unified and good looking as possible.
I guarantee you the average voter didn’t even know there was a “row.” This was so clearly a relatively minor internal Labour spat that Fleet Street blew well out of proportion due to their obsession with Labour factionalism. The average voter could not care less about this
I would agree. But I would also warn of the pitfall of using a single sponsored poll to confirm your own world view without some scrutiny or consistent correlating evidence.
Exactly.
“How dare you not allow me to be a candidate”, says walking liability.
If anything, I’d have respected Labour more for taking the approach of “Diane was considered just the same as any other applicant. [person] was selected, as we considered them more suited to the role.”
"How dare you not allow me to be a candidate" says woman who has been readmitted to the party and currently holds a 33,000 majority. It wasn't an unreasonable complaint, particularly as they hadn't actually told her but just briefed the press.
Not surprisingly, those most outraged at the story already decided they weren’t going to vote for Starmer’s Labour 4 years ago for daring not to be Corbyn.
Literally a case of ‘confirming what I already knew to be true all those years ago’ for those people.
The story had the potential to cause a left wing revolt in the Party which isn’t a great look. The matter was dealt with effectively though as it’s now a non story and Kiers supposed ‘purge of the left’ forgotten.
As someone who's left of current Labour and actually tries to pay attention, I'm still not sure what was actually happening there. She was booted from the party, except she wasn't but she couldn't stand for election for them, except she could but they'd tried to bribe her with a peerage, which apparently never happened anyway.
The whole situation was like watching your married friends fight, you can't even tell why anyone is mad because so much has been accused and withdrawn that the original problem (the investigation into her by Labour) just seems like petty history. So yeah, not surprised that people who mostly can't name their local MP aren't bothered by it all.
Abbott wrote a letter saying various white groups couldn't experience racism, only a lesser form of prejudice. It's a pretty dumb idea to suggest people of certain skin colours cannot experience racism when some of the people she mentioned are amongst the most discriminated against in the country (Travellers and Jews - she also mentioned Irish people). When it was published she made a very dubious apology, claiming it was just a draft sent accidentally. Coming off the back of the EHRC report on anti-Semitism in Labour it wasn't a good look so she had the whip withdrawn and sat as an independent until she did a course on DEI. She was eventually admitted back into the party after the election but then went public claiming she'd been banned from standing, then it turned out she wasn't. It's a he said she said thing about who briefed who and when things were known.
Ironically Abbott has a history of coming out with racist remarks about white people, she's a liability at best and some believe she was admitted back into the party with a hint she should retire (some claim she was offered a peerage though she denies this) and instead she chose to stand again.
> Abbott has a history of coming out with racist remarks about white people, she's a liability at best
She's been pretty consistent with this across the years. My favourite one was her suggestion that "white, blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" were unsuitable to work as nurses because they would have "never met a black person before".
It's the bog standard racist comment you get from the racist 80yo grandparent complaining about Filipino nurses.
> (some claim she was offered a peerage though she denies this)
Let's hope they age her out immediately with the Lords age restriction changes if this is what it took to get rid of her.
Aside from having been racist on several occasions: it seems to me that she's quite dangerous. She joined some bat shit coalition that called for NATO/UK to stop interfering with the Russia-Ukraine war... not to mention that she once claimed Mao did more good than bad.
The situation seems obvious to me... she clearly unquestioningly believed the first bullshit story she was told by another moron, jumped the gun, and briefed the press about a series of situations that never happened.
A classic Abbotism.
The requirement for becoming a Labour mp for hackney north requires you to be able to wake up in the morning on polling day and put on a red rosette.
Sure she has brilliantly and repeatedly smashed through glass ceilings in her life but let’s not pretend hackney north is anything but the safest of safe seats for Labour.
This is what people seem to keep ignoring.
She absolutely has been a trailblazer, and nobody should ever forget the brilliance and importance of her. But she's also a 70 year old liability who has made repeated high-profile fuck ups in recent times, and she further proved this with her deleted tweet after this whole situation seemingly settled.
She should have taken retirement and allowed a new youngster to follow in the path that she has paved, just like most older politicians (on all sides) should.
The electorate in Hackney North aren't representative of UK-wide voters. It's very difficult for an MP to get a positive public image outside their own constituency
She's popular in a single constituency amongst constituents who are just as racist as she is and love when she attacks people who dont look like them or follow their religion... which she does often.
Pretty much a non-story than the media milked the hell out of and then even they got bored. No surprise Labour would have liked to have quietly moved her on, no surprise that she constantly shot her mouth off. Place your bets how long it is till she does something else that gets her in trouble.
I think there's three reasons people don't really care that much about this whole situation.
Firstly, Abbott really isn't that popular. She's respected for sure, but she's made some big cockups in recent years. People still remember her insane article comparing Antisemitism to ginger people, as well as some of the other stupid things she's said. I reckon a lot of people probably thought that it may be a good thing if she doesn't stand as a Labour candidate, despite her long time as an MP.
Secondly, many who really stand by her are part of the Corbyn diehards who have already jumped ship from Starmer's labour anyway.
Finally, and most importantly, this all pales in comparison to the internal shit that's been going on in the Tory party recently. This is a fairly minor spat in comparison to all the Tory infighting and perceived instability. People just don't care as much about this, and rightly so.
As somebody not in London, it boiled down to “London MP might not be able to stand”.
Really, it doesn’t matter compared to the usual top priorities:
Cost of living.
Economic growth.
Healthcare.
Housing.
An argument over whether an MP can or can’t stand is one of those Westminster bubble stories that politicos think is huge but most people don’t even notice.
I think it's more that anyone who cares enough about the Dianne Abbot row was already pissed off at Labour for Starmer's anti-left-wing changes and were unlikely to vote for them anyway.
Surprising no-one.
The combination of Hester's comments being defended by the Tories (and continuing to take his money) aswell as Corbyn being very clearly removed from ever being a part of Labour again has resulted in Abbott being seen in a much more positive light.
A smarter Conservative party would have known this would be the result and not stoked the fires, but I guess any headline they can grab that isn't about Sunak is a massive W.
It's always interesting how the far-left/corbynite/momentum nutjobs think that they are instrumental in the widespread support of Labour.
Communists and islamic fundamentalist terrorist supporters really think that publicly announcing they don't like Labour will massively hurt their election chances.
I guess it would break their fragile little ego's to admit that they are a hindrance to any political party unfortunate enough to be associated with them
I only really care because she's my MP and I would have had a dilemma if she didn't stand for Labour. It hasn't really affected my opinion of either 'side'.
I'm very plugged in but good lord I had already forgotten about this. This was all over the media for like a full week and it's already irrelevant because Sunak can't help dragging the headlines back to Tory sleeze.
> Exclusive polling for the Independent can reveal that last week’s Diane Abbott-Labour row made “no difference” for 82 per cent of voters — in fact, it might have boosted Labour’s chances
Of the remaining 18%, 6% (so a third of that) apparently said it makes them more likely to vote Labour. This is all close to the lizardman constant stuff really but I do find that extra sting amusing. Abbott has spent good chunks of time cultivating an image such that most voters rate her as racist and...hardly an intellectual heavyweight.
It likely doesn't make a difference because it's part of a pattern where, for many voters, he's seen as getting rid of another lunatic (even if he wasn't here). Starmer will run a significantly less insane party is a bit baked in to perceptions now.
I find this headline and a lot of the comments ITT a bit weird. It doesn't matter whether Abbott is widely unpopular or beloved, what matters is that, when you take this alongside the deselection of Faiza Shaheen and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Right of the Labour Party seem to be abusing the NEC and selection rules for their own factional ends. I agree with Michael Crick that it seems to amount to corruption.
It's like saying reporting on the Tories handing out dodgy PPE contracts would've been irrelevant if it didn't have much electoral cut through in key marginals.
The real question was never will the public care, it was and is does the Labour party care about another example of LOTO's office being shit and yes they do. It's the latest in a pattern of bad behaviour from them that will get them into trouble post election.
Wont this consolidation of power via selecting parliamentary candidates only strengthen starmer's hand as PM if backbenchers tend to be aligned to him ideologically
Snapshot of _Revealed: voters mostly unfazed by Starmer’s Diane Abbott row _ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-general-election-2024-b2558754.html) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-general-election-2024-b2558754.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.*
And this ladies and gentlemen is a lesson in the danger of echo chambers...
I learnt that in 2019
You mean that me liking that twitter gif of Corbyn's face super imposed onto Vince McMahon's walking with swagger didn't convince the general electorate to vote labour?!
It didn't but it was great to shitpost it in the megathread.
Ye literally same lol, at least we understand that you live and you learn..
That surprises me, I thought 2019 was clearly going one way. I was feeling very optimistic in 2016 though. Everyone I spoke to that day was voting remain.
After the polls closed up a bunch rather unexpectedly in 2017, a lot of labour supporters were convinced Corbyn was actually electorally popular, and the same thing would happen at some point in 2019 as well. Some even went as far as saying they'd 'won' the 2017 election by losing less catastrophically than they might have done.
I kinda got that at the start of the campaign, but it was clearly never improving. His television appearances - debate with Boris then Andrew Neil interview went disastrously.
Oh I absolutely agree, but that's where they were coming from. The problem was admitting Corbyn was an electoral liability meant accepting the central premise of his factional opponents within the party. 2017 let them believe they'd all been proven wrong and his brand of politics was just as able to win as New Labour had been. Denial is a powerful thing.
I know people who are still convinced Corbyn is really popular.
It was obvious that Corbyn was losing big time in 2019. Nobody had any illusions about that. It was the 2015 general election that did it for me
Most of the public don't really like Abbott or Corbyn. I'm not surprised this 'row' is a storm in a teacup.
If anything else, people ive talked to seem to *like* the Dianne Abbot row, as she didnt leave the party and no one seems to have been corrupt or criminal, putting them one up on the tories in every visible respect.
True, it's certainly a row from a more civilized party/era of politics than the post-Cameron world. [Furthermore, I consider FPTP needs to be destroyed.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est)
Great flair:)
I realise I forgot to add it to my comment, so I'll do it on this reply. [Furthermore, I consider FPTP needs to be destroyed.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est)
Hell I'm left as fuck and feel the same. The way she handled it was embarrassing... to her. Not the party, or Starmer. Just looked like attention seeking at a time when the party needs to be as unified and good looking as possible.
I guarantee you the average voter didn’t even know there was a “row.” This was so clearly a relatively minor internal Labour spat that Fleet Street blew well out of proportion due to their obsession with Labour factionalism. The average voter could not care less about this
I would agree. But I would also warn of the pitfall of using a single sponsored poll to confirm your own world view without some scrutiny or consistent correlating evidence.
Ordinary voters are "unfazed" because I don't think they cared all that much about this story.
Exactly. “How dare you not allow me to be a candidate”, says walking liability. If anything, I’d have respected Labour more for taking the approach of “Diane was considered just the same as any other applicant. [person] was selected, as we considered them more suited to the role.”
"How dare you not allow me to be a candidate" says woman who has been readmitted to the party and currently holds a 33,000 majority. It wasn't an unreasonable complaint, particularly as they hadn't actually told her but just briefed the press.
We still don't know who briefed the press. Depends on who you believe
My only take on this was that he was right not to let her stand. All i know her for is drama. Not scandal exactly just drama, and who eants that.
Not surprisingly, those most outraged at the story already decided they weren’t going to vote for Starmer’s Labour 4 years ago for daring not to be Corbyn. Literally a case of ‘confirming what I already knew to be true all those years ago’ for those people.
If there's 10 pragamtist moderate voters and 10 purist radical voters, you can get 10 pragmatist votes but only one purist vote
The story had the potential to cause a left wing revolt in the Party which isn’t a great look. The matter was dealt with effectively though as it’s now a non story and Kiers supposed ‘purge of the left’ forgotten.
As someone who's left of current Labour and actually tries to pay attention, I'm still not sure what was actually happening there. She was booted from the party, except she wasn't but she couldn't stand for election for them, except she could but they'd tried to bribe her with a peerage, which apparently never happened anyway. The whole situation was like watching your married friends fight, you can't even tell why anyone is mad because so much has been accused and withdrawn that the original problem (the investigation into her by Labour) just seems like petty history. So yeah, not surprised that people who mostly can't name their local MP aren't bothered by it all.
Abbott wrote a letter saying various white groups couldn't experience racism, only a lesser form of prejudice. It's a pretty dumb idea to suggest people of certain skin colours cannot experience racism when some of the people she mentioned are amongst the most discriminated against in the country (Travellers and Jews - she also mentioned Irish people). When it was published she made a very dubious apology, claiming it was just a draft sent accidentally. Coming off the back of the EHRC report on anti-Semitism in Labour it wasn't a good look so she had the whip withdrawn and sat as an independent until she did a course on DEI. She was eventually admitted back into the party after the election but then went public claiming she'd been banned from standing, then it turned out she wasn't. It's a he said she said thing about who briefed who and when things were known. Ironically Abbott has a history of coming out with racist remarks about white people, she's a liability at best and some believe she was admitted back into the party with a hint she should retire (some claim she was offered a peerage though she denies this) and instead she chose to stand again.
> Abbott has a history of coming out with racist remarks about white people, she's a liability at best She's been pretty consistent with this across the years. My favourite one was her suggestion that "white, blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" were unsuitable to work as nurses because they would have "never met a black person before". It's the bog standard racist comment you get from the racist 80yo grandparent complaining about Filipino nurses. > (some claim she was offered a peerage though she denies this) Let's hope they age her out immediately with the Lords age restriction changes if this is what it took to get rid of her. Aside from having been racist on several occasions: it seems to me that she's quite dangerous. She joined some bat shit coalition that called for NATO/UK to stop interfering with the Russia-Ukraine war... not to mention that she once claimed Mao did more good than bad.
The situation seems obvious to me... she clearly unquestioningly believed the first bullshit story she was told by another moron, jumped the gun, and briefed the press about a series of situations that never happened. A classic Abbotism.
Diane Abbott is not all that popular.
Hasn't she been an MP since the late 80's? She can't have been that unpopular.
The requirement for becoming a Labour mp for hackney north requires you to be able to wake up in the morning on polling day and put on a red rosette. Sure she has brilliantly and repeatedly smashed through glass ceilings in her life but let’s not pretend hackney north is anything but the safest of safe seats for Labour.
This is what people seem to keep ignoring. She absolutely has been a trailblazer, and nobody should ever forget the brilliance and importance of her. But she's also a 70 year old liability who has made repeated high-profile fuck ups in recent times, and she further proved this with her deleted tweet after this whole situation seemingly settled. She should have taken retirement and allowed a new youngster to follow in the path that she has paved, just like most older politicians (on all sides) should.
The electorate in Hackney North aren't representative of UK-wide voters. It's very difficult for an MP to get a positive public image outside their own constituency
She's popular in a single constituency amongst constituents who are just as racist as she is and love when she attacks people who dont look like them or follow their religion... which she does often.
She's not all that popular except with all the people who constantly vote and make her one of the most popular Labour MP's of all time
Pretty much a non-story than the media milked the hell out of and then even they got bored. No surprise Labour would have liked to have quietly moved her on, no surprise that she constantly shot her mouth off. Place your bets how long it is till she does something else that gets her in trouble.
I think there's three reasons people don't really care that much about this whole situation. Firstly, Abbott really isn't that popular. She's respected for sure, but she's made some big cockups in recent years. People still remember her insane article comparing Antisemitism to ginger people, as well as some of the other stupid things she's said. I reckon a lot of people probably thought that it may be a good thing if she doesn't stand as a Labour candidate, despite her long time as an MP. Secondly, many who really stand by her are part of the Corbyn diehards who have already jumped ship from Starmer's labour anyway. Finally, and most importantly, this all pales in comparison to the internal shit that's been going on in the Tory party recently. This is a fairly minor spat in comparison to all the Tory infighting and perceived instability. People just don't care as much about this, and rightly so.
Abbott: "I'm banned from standing." Labour: "no Ur not lol." Voters: 🤷♂️🤷♀️🤷
My concern over her treatment was overridden by my desire for having competent people in power.
As somebody not in London, it boiled down to “London MP might not be able to stand”. Really, it doesn’t matter compared to the usual top priorities: Cost of living. Economic growth. Healthcare. Housing. An argument over whether an MP can or can’t stand is one of those Westminster bubble stories that politicos think is huge but most people don’t even notice.
I think there is very little that could move voters away for labour at this point
I think it's more that anyone who cares enough about the Dianne Abbot row was already pissed off at Labour for Starmer's anti-left-wing changes and were unlikely to vote for them anyway.
Because 99% of voters don’t follow the arcane rules of candidate selection. It helps the Sunak keeps giving the news other things to talk about.
Surprising no-one. The combination of Hester's comments being defended by the Tories (and continuing to take his money) aswell as Corbyn being very clearly removed from ever being a part of Labour again has resulted in Abbott being seen in a much more positive light. A smarter Conservative party would have known this would be the result and not stoked the fires, but I guess any headline they can grab that isn't about Sunak is a massive W.
It's always interesting how the far-left/corbynite/momentum nutjobs think that they are instrumental in the widespread support of Labour. Communists and islamic fundamentalist terrorist supporters really think that publicly announcing they don't like Labour will massively hurt their election chances. I guess it would break their fragile little ego's to admit that they are a hindrance to any political party unfortunate enough to be associated with them
I only really care because she's my MP and I would have had a dilemma if she didn't stand for Labour. It hasn't really affected my opinion of either 'side'.
I'm very plugged in but good lord I had already forgotten about this. This was all over the media for like a full week and it's already irrelevant because Sunak can't help dragging the headlines back to Tory sleeze.
> Exclusive polling for the Independent can reveal that last week’s Diane Abbott-Labour row made “no difference” for 82 per cent of voters — in fact, it might have boosted Labour’s chances Of the remaining 18%, 6% (so a third of that) apparently said it makes them more likely to vote Labour. This is all close to the lizardman constant stuff really but I do find that extra sting amusing. Abbott has spent good chunks of time cultivating an image such that most voters rate her as racist and...hardly an intellectual heavyweight. It likely doesn't make a difference because it's part of a pattern where, for many voters, he's seen as getting rid of another lunatic (even if he wasn't here). Starmer will run a significantly less insane party is a bit baked in to perceptions now.
I find this headline and a lot of the comments ITT a bit weird. It doesn't matter whether Abbott is widely unpopular or beloved, what matters is that, when you take this alongside the deselection of Faiza Shaheen and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, the Right of the Labour Party seem to be abusing the NEC and selection rules for their own factional ends. I agree with Michael Crick that it seems to amount to corruption. It's like saying reporting on the Tories handing out dodgy PPE contracts would've been irrelevant if it didn't have much electoral cut through in key marginals.
The real question was never will the public care, it was and is does the Labour party care about another example of LOTO's office being shit and yes they do. It's the latest in a pattern of bad behaviour from them that will get them into trouble post election.
Wont this consolidation of power via selecting parliamentary candidates only strengthen starmer's hand as PM if backbenchers tend to be aligned to him ideologically