Diane Abbott: Labour ‘wants me out' after second suspension
It comes a day after Sir Keir Starmer stripped the whip from four Labour MPs for persistent breaches of discipline.
Ms Abbott, the longest-serving female MP in the Commons, lost the whip and had a lengthy stint sitting as an independent after she suggested in 2023 that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people experience prejudice, but not racism.
She apologised for those remarks at the time and was eventually readmitted to the party just in time to stand as a Labour candidate in the 2024 general election.
But in a BBC interview released this week, she said she did not regret the incident.
'Diane Abbott has been administratively suspended from the Labour Party, pending an investigation. We cannot comment further while this investigation is ongoing,' a Labour spokesperson said.
Ms Abbott posted a clip of her BBC interview after news of her suspension emerged. She did not respond to a request for comment, but gave a statement to BBC Newsnight.
'It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out.
'My comments in the interview with James Naughtie were factually correct, as any fair-minded person would accept,' she said.
The original comments in 2023 were in a letter to The Observer newspaper, and she withdrew the remarks the same day and apologised 'for any anguish caused'.
In the interview with BBC Radio 4's Reflections programme, she was asked whether she looked back on the incident with regret.
'No, not at all,' she said.
'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism, because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know.
'You don't know unless you stop to speak to them or you're in a meeting with them.
'But if you see a black person walking down the street, you see straight away that they're black. There are different types of racism.'
She added: 'I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism.'
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner was asked if she was disappointed by the comments.
'I was. There's no place for antisemitism in the Labour Party, and obviously the Labour Party has processes for that,' she told The Guardian newspaper.
'Diane had reflected on how she'd put that article together, and said that 'was not supposed to be the version', and now to double down and say 'Well, actually I didn't mean that. I actually meant what I originally said', I think is a real challenge.'
Ms Abbott entered Parliament in 1987 and holds the honorary title of Mother of the House.
Her suspension comes in the same week that Sir Keir carried out a purge of troublesome backbenchers in a bid to assert authority over the party.
Rachael Maskell, who spearheaded plans to halt the Government's welfare reforms, had the whip suspended alongside Neil Duncan-Jordan, Brian Leishman and Chris Hinchliff.
Party sources said the decision to suspend the whip was taken as a result of persistent breaches of discipline rather than a single rebellion.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
David Pratt: Israel's expansionism is the clear and present danger
Ever since the founding of the Jewish state, Israel has repeatedly presented to the world that its military actions have been motivated primarily by 'existential' need. That much was evident again during a speech in February when Israeli defence minister Israel Katz told how he had asked the country's military commanders what the main lesson was from the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. 'They said we will no longer allow radical organisations to exist near Israel's borders, whether in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria or near the settlements. And that is now our policy,' Katz's speech went on to recount the military chiefs as saying. But the truth of the matter is that this has always been Israel's policy, and at the heart of such a military doctrine lies the belief that territorial depth offers lasting security. Or, to put this another way, security through expansionism has forever been a core tenet of the Israeli military playbook. That said, rarely though has the country and its government been as determinedly expansionist as it is today. Writing recently in the Financial Times (FT), the Saudi author and commentator Ali Shihabi described Israel's current pursuit of more territory as one 'cloaked in the language of security and religious entitlement'. By 'entitlement', Shihabi is of course referring to the biblical idea of a 'Greater Israel' that many of the religious zealots and right-wingers that comprise Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu's coalition government envisage in Gaza, the Occupied West Bank and beyond. Whether Netanyahu himself is fully aligned with his cabinet over ambitions for a 'Greater Israel' remains open to conjecture, but what's in no doubt is that Israel is now pushing back its borders like never before. In Gaza this past week, reports of an intensification in the demolition of buildings underscores what many observers see as Israel's long-term plan to move the Palestinian population out and fully control Gaza's post-war space. In the occupied West Bank, meanwhile, Israel's illegal settlement expansion and annexing of territory goes on apace. Further afield, the past week also saw Israel doubling down militarily on both Syria and Lebanon. In Syria, Israel continues to take territorial advantage of the country's political fragility in the wake of the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad's regime. For months, the Israeli military have been assimilating the Druze residents of the Golan Heights, venturing territorially far beyond the line where their predecessors stopped during the conquest of this mountainous plateau that Israel has occupied since 1967. Since the ousting of Assad last December, Israel has struck Syria hundreds of times and invaded and occupied about 155 square miles of its territory. Last Wednesday, Israel launched air strikes on Syria's capital, Damascus. It also hit Syrian government forces in the south in an operation it says was aimed at protecting the Druze minority group caught up in clashes with Bedouin tribes in Syria's southern province of Sweida close to the Israeli border. But Netanyahu's claim that Israel is simply giving the Druze – one million of whom are spread across the region, including in Israel – a helping hand simply doesn't wash with many Middle East analysts. 'It's pure opportunism,' Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli ambassador and consul general in New York, told Al Jazeera. 'Of course, it's nice to pretend that we're helping our friends the Druze, in the same way as we never helped our other friends, the Kurds,' he said, referring to another regional ethnic group. Pinkas is not alone in his assessment that Israel doesn't want to see a unified Syria with a strong central government controlled by Ahmed al-Sharaa's fledgling presidency. Like other observers, Pinkas maintains that Netanyahu would far rather see 'a weak central government dealing with areas controlled by the Kurds (in the north) and the Druze and Bedouin in the south. 'Basically, if Syria remains un-unified, Israel can do what it wants in its south,' he added, underlining yet again the perceived importance of territorial depth offering lasting security. Few doubt that the sectarian violence that has gripped Syria's Sweida province these past days has underscored the country's fragility and presented Shaara with his most significant crisis yet. For his part, Netanyahu reiterated that Israel will continue to use military means to enforce its two red lines in Syria – the demilitarisation of the area south of Damascus, near Israel's border, and the protection of the country's Druze minority there. The most extremist members of Netanyahu's government meanwhile continue to make clear that Israel's intention is to go much further. Only a few months ago, Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich declared that Israel would not stop fighting until Syria was partitioned and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had been expelled from Gaza into third countries. 'With God's help and the valour of your comrades-in-arms who continue to fight even now, we will end this campaign when Syria is dismantled, Hezbollah is severely beaten, Iran is stripped of its nuclear threat, Gaza is cleansed of Hamas and hundreds of thousands of Gazans are on their way out of it to other countries,' Smotrich declared during a pre-Memorial Day speech in the West Bank. According to the Times of Israel, Smotrich's comment about dividing Syria came just days after US Republican congressman Marlin Stutzman told the newspaper that Sharaa had expressed 'openness' to normalising relations with Jerusalem and cautioned against efforts to divide the country. 'The first (concern) – which I felt was most important to him – was that Israel may have a plan to divide up the nation of Syria into ... multiple parts. That was something that he was very opposed to,' Stutzman recalled. The plan, again according to the Times of Israel, appeared to be a reference to the lobbying Israel has reportedly been doing in Washington for the US to buck Sharaa's fledgling government in favour of establishing a decentralised series of autonomous ethnic regions, with the southern one bordering Israel being demilitarised. Going by last week's flare-up between Israel and Syria, that issue of partitioning Syria and creating a demilitarised southern area appears to be still on the cards as far as Netanyahu is concerned. This weekend, relations took a slightly more positive turn however after hostilities between the two sides were quelled on Friday by the announcement of a ceasefire. Israeli officials confirmed that 'due to the ongoing instability,' they had agreed to allow Syrian forces limited access to the Sweida area over the next few days. But even with this ceasefire in place, the situation remains incredibly volatile, and Shaara could now in effect be forced to either cede ambitions to reassert state control over southern Syria, undermining his attempts to unify the country, or risk an even greater confrontation with Israel. Israel's laying down of territorial markers in Syria is just the latest example of what some analysts say is a policy of pushing a dangerous expansionism in the region. With the Israeli air force bombing Beirut and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, as well as the Syrian capital Damascus from which its infantry troops are now stationed a mere 40 minutes away, never has Israel engaged in such prolonged conflict on so many battlefronts. All this too before taking into consideration its recent onslaught on targets across Iran. With every day that passes, Netanyahu, it seems. raises the stakes even further while increasingly disregarding the occasional overtures from Washington to rein in Israel's military actions as was the case in Syria last week. To get a fuller picture of the scale and intensity of Israel's expansionist strategy right now, it's worth considering recent mapping compiled by the independent non-profit think tank the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED). According to a recent analysis of its data, it shows that between October 7, 2023 – the date of the Hamas attack on Israel – and just before Israel attacked Iran on June 13, 2025, Israel carried out nearly 35,000 recorded attacks across five countries: the occupied Palestinian territory, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran. These attacks include air and drone strikes, shelling and missile attacks, remote explosives and property destruction. The majority of attacks have been on Palestinian territory with at least 18,235 recorded incidents, followed by Lebanon (15,520), Syria (616), Iran (58) and Yemen (39). Detailing ACLED's research, the broadcaster Al Jazeera noted that while the bulk of Israel's attacks have concentrated on nearby Gaza, the occupied West Bank and Lebanon, its military operations have also reached far beyond its immediate borders. Over the past six months, Israeli forces have launched more than 200 air, drone or artillery attacks across Syria, averaging an assault roughly every three to four days, according to ACLED. Meanwhile, reports last week confirmed that Israel has stepped up the demolition of buildings across Gaza with entire towns and suburbs levelled in the past few weeks. Heavy machinery has played a central role in this destruction, operated both by soldiers and civilians, reports indicate. Civilians operating heavy machinery in [[Gaza]] can earn as much as $9000 per month, according to reports in TheMarker, a Hebrew-language daily business newspaper. According to TheMarker, a trained heavy equipment operator can earn approximately 1200 shekels (£270) per day, drawn from the 5000 shekels (£1118) the Israeli Ministry of Defence pays daily to the equipment's owner. 'At first I did it for the money. Then for revenge. The work there is very hard and unpleasant. The army doesn't operate smartly, it just wants to destroy as much as possible and doesn't care about anything,' one heavy equipment operator told TheMarker. Gaza's demolitions – many of them buildings that have already been destroyed or damaged by Israel's military onslaught – are seen by observers as part of a longer post-war plan to control, contain or disperse what remains of Gaza's civilian Palestinian population and prepare the way for the territory's use for settlement expansion and commercial use. In the occupied West Bank, Israel is applying many of the tactics used in its war on Gaza to seize and control territory there. According to an analysis by the British research group Forensic Architecture, Israel has used building demolitions, armoured bulldozers and air strikes to establish a permanent military presence in areas such as Jenin, Nur Shams and Tulkarem refugee camps. Satellite imagery shows widespread destruction, with entire neighbourhoods flattened and roads reconfigured to facilitate troop movements and surveillance. The United Nations estimates that these operations have displaced at least 40,000 Palestinians. As Israel's expansionist strategy intensifies, many regional observers say it is simply fuelling chaos and stoking up a future widening regional conflict. Martin Gak is an Argentinian Jewish journalist based in Germany who is of the view that Israel's territorial ambitions are 'much bigger than the theological design of greater Israel'. In a recent interview, Gak drew parallels with the way Israel is now operating in the Middle East using tactics similar to those of Russia. He said: 'If you look at Gaza, if you look at what happened in southern Lebanon, the images should be very reminiscent of Grozny in the second Chechen war ... so, I think that what we're seeing is a Russian playbook of complete destruction,' Gak told Turkish media. Other regional observers like Shihabi, in the FT, recently posed the question as to what Israel truly gains from this relentless push to expand its borders. 'The cost is staggering: deepening international isolation, increasing threats to the global Jewish community, psychological trauma within a constantly targeted Israeli society and the further destabilisation of an already volatile region,' Shihabi concluded. Like other Middle East watchers, Shihabi is firmly of the view that more territory is not the answer to Israel's security problems and that 'the future is being held hostage by zealots who value conquest over coexistence'. While it might have been initially framed as an 'incursion' to eradicate Hamas and rescue the nearly 250 hostages seized on October 7, Israel's Gaza 'operation' has since moved into an entirely new and much wider military realm. It's one too for which it has been given virtual carte blanche by the US and Western countries to prosecute. Until that stops, Israel's dangerous expansionist ambitions will almost certainly continue to fuel an escalation in conflict across the Middle East. The days of framing such a military strategy as being driven by 'existential need' have gone. Israel, as many rightfully argue, is the real regional threat now.
Leader Live
18 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Water bills to see ‘small, steady' rise despite reform plans, says Reed
Steve Reed is expected to set out plans for 'root and branch reform' of the water sector on Monday, following the publication of a landmark review of the industry. Those plans are thought to include action to tackle sewage spills, invest in water infrastructure and the abolition of the industry's beleaguered regulator Ofwat as ministers seek to avoid a repeat of this year's 26% increase in bills. But while Mr Reed has promised that families will never again see 'huge shock hikes' to their bills, he was unable on Sunday to rule out further above-inflation increases. Although he told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that bills should be 'as low as possible', he added that there needed to be 'appropriate bill rises' to secure 'appropriate levels of investment'. He said: 'A small, steady increase in bills is what people expect.' Government sources have argued that the recent large rise in bills was necessary to pay for investment in long-neglected infrastructure, but expect Mr Reed's promised reforms to make further rises unnecessary. Asked about the possibility of expanding social tariffs to help households struggling with bills – a move that could see wealthier families pay more – Mr Reed said he had 'not been convinced yet' that this was necessary. Earlier on Sunday, Mr Reed had pledged to halve sewage pollution in England by 2030, after the Environment Agency said serious pollution incidents had risen by 60% in 2024. Mr Reed said the measures the Government was taking would enable it to significantly reduce pollution, with the aim of completely eliminating it by 2035 should it be re-elected. He also suggested to the BBC that he would resign if the 2030 target was not achieved, provided he was still in the same job by then. His comments come before a major report by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is expected to recommend sweeping reform to water regulation on Monday. Sir Jon has been widely reported to be preparing to recommend the abolition of Ofwat, which has faced criticism over its handling of sewage spills and allowing water companies to pay large dividends while taking on significant debt and missing targets for investing in infrastructure. On Sunday, Mr Reed would not say whether he would scrap Ofwat, but also declined to say he had confidence in the regulator. He told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: 'The regulator is clearly failing.' Sir Jon's interim report criticised regulation of the water sector, which is split between economic regulator Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. But on Sunday, Conservative shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said he would be concerned any changes 'might just be shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic'. He told the BBC: 'It's really important the regulator's effective, and we put in a lot of measures to give Ofwat more powers to regulate the water industry and a lot of those things were very effective.' Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said he backed scrapping Ofwat, calling for a new Clean Water Authority to 'hold these water companies to account'. Sir Ed has also called for the Government to go further and aim to eliminate sewage pollution entirely by 2030, saying voters were 'fed up with empty promises from ministers while Britain's waterways continue to be ruined by sewage'. He added: 'For years water companies have paid out millions in dividends and bonuses. It would be deeply unfair if customers are now made to pick up the tab for this scandal through higher bills.' Although sweeping regulatory reform is likely to be on the table, full nationalisation of the industry will not be after the Government excluded it from Sir Jon's terms of reference. Smaller parties such as the Greens have called for nationalisation, while on Sunday Reform UK's Nigel Farage said he would look to strike a deal with the private sector to bring 50% of the water industry under public ownership. Mr Reed argued that nationalisation would cost 'upwards of £100 billion', diverting resources from the NHS and taking years during which pollution would get worse.
North Wales Chronicle
19 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Water bills to see ‘small, steady' rise despite reform plans, says Reed
Steve Reed is expected to set out plans for 'root and branch reform' of the water sector on Monday, following the publication of a landmark review of the industry. Those plans are thought to include action to tackle sewage spills, invest in water infrastructure and the abolition of the industry's beleaguered regulator Ofwat as ministers seek to avoid a repeat of this year's 26% increase in bills. But while Mr Reed has promised that families will never again see 'huge shock hikes' to their bills, he was unable on Sunday to rule out further above-inflation increases. Although he told Sky News's Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips that bills should be 'as low as possible', he added that there needed to be 'appropriate bill rises' to secure 'appropriate levels of investment'. He said: 'A small, steady increase in bills is what people expect.' Government sources have argued that the recent large rise in bills was necessary to pay for investment in long-neglected infrastructure, but expect Mr Reed's promised reforms to make further rises unnecessary. Asked about the possibility of expanding social tariffs to help households struggling with bills – a move that could see wealthier families pay more – Mr Reed said he had 'not been convinced yet' that this was necessary. Earlier on Sunday, Mr Reed had pledged to halve sewage pollution in England by 2030, after the Environment Agency said serious pollution incidents had risen by 60% in 2024. Mr Reed said the measures the Government was taking would enable it to significantly reduce pollution, with the aim of completely eliminating it by 2035 should it be re-elected. He also suggested to the BBC that he would resign if the 2030 target was not achieved, provided he was still in the same job by then. His comments come before a major report by former Bank of England deputy governor Sir Jon Cunliffe, which is expected to recommend sweeping reform to water regulation on Monday. Sir Jon has been widely reported to be preparing to recommend the abolition of Ofwat, which has faced criticism over its handling of sewage spills and allowing water companies to pay large dividends while taking on significant debt and missing targets for investing in infrastructure. On Sunday, Mr Reed would not say whether he would scrap Ofwat, but also declined to say he had confidence in the regulator. He told the BBC's Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg: 'The regulator is clearly failing.' Sir Jon's interim report criticised regulation of the water sector, which is split between economic regulator Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate. But on Sunday, Conservative shadow communities secretary Kevin Hollinrake said he would be concerned any changes 'might just be shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic'. He told the BBC: 'It's really important the regulator's effective, and we put in a lot of measures to give Ofwat more powers to regulate the water industry and a lot of those things were very effective.' Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said he backed scrapping Ofwat, calling for a new Clean Water Authority to 'hold these water companies to account'. Sir Ed has also called for the Government to go further and aim to eliminate sewage pollution entirely by 2030, saying voters were 'fed up with empty promises from ministers while Britain's waterways continue to be ruined by sewage'. He added: 'For years water companies have paid out millions in dividends and bonuses. It would be deeply unfair if customers are now made to pick up the tab for this scandal through higher bills.' Although sweeping regulatory reform is likely to be on the table, full nationalisation of the industry will not be after the Government excluded it from Sir Jon's terms of reference. Smaller parties such as the Greens have called for nationalisation, while on Sunday Reform UK's Nigel Farage said he would look to strike a deal with the private sector to bring 50% of the water industry under public ownership. Mr Reed argued that nationalisation would cost 'upwards of £100 billion', diverting resources from the NHS and taking years during which pollution would get worse.
