‘Not true' that Labour wants Diane Abbott out, minister says
Ms Abbott was previously suspended from the party after she suggested in 2023 that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people experience prejudice, but not racism.
She later apologised for the remarks and was readmitted just in time to stand as the Labour candidate in her seat at the general election last year.
But in an interview broadcast this week, Ms Abbott, the Mother of the House who has represented her constituency since 1987, said she did not regret the incident, which led to a second suspension.
Following her suspension, Ms Abbott told BBC Newsnight: 'It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out.'
'That's absolutely not the case,' Mr Murray told Times Radio on Friday morning.
'What's happened is Diane has made some comments which come on the back of previous comments which she made and for which she apologised some time ago.'
He added that there was an internal investigation and 'we now need to let this process play out' so it can be resolved 'as swiftly as possible'. It comes after Sir Keir Starmer stripped the whip from four other Labour MPs for 'persistent breaches of discipline' as the Prime Minister seeks to reassert his grip on his back benches following a rebellion over welfare reform.
'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 on Thursday.
Ms Abbott later said: 'It is obvious this Labour leadership wants me out.
'My comments in the interview… were factually correct, as any fair-minded person would accept.'
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 following a revolt over planned welfare reforms which saw the Government offer major concessions to rebels.
Rachael Maskell, who spearheaded plans to halt the Government's Bill, 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 Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves ‘could extend fuel duty freeze in autumn Budget' in cost of living boost
Rachel Reeves will freeze fuel duty again this autumn in a boost to drivers still struggling with the cost of living, it has eben reported. The chancellor reportedly feels vindicated by a freeze on the levy last October, despite calls from campaigners and economists to hike the tax. As she seeks to fill a multi-billion pound black hole in the public finances, she has faced fresh calls to end the long-running freeze on fuel duty, which has been in place since 2011. Maintaining the freeze, and keeping in place a 5p cut brought in by Rishi Sunak as chancellor in 2022, is expected to cost around £5bn per year - the same as Labour's U-turn on planned benefit cuts. But The i reported a hike in fuel duty in line with inflation will not form part of Ms Reeves' Autumn Budget as she seeks to balance the books. Treasury sources told the newspaper the freeze is an example of the Treasury being 'front-footed' in tackling the cost of living pressures facing households. The headline rate on standard petrol and diesel is 52.95 pence per litre, a level which would ordinarily rise in line with inflation. But the repeated freezing of the measure means that, since George Osborne first made the move, the rate has fallen by more than a third in real terms. The Social Market Foundation, a think tank, said freezes and cuts since 2012 will have cost the government more than £200bn in total by 2028, more than the budget for the NHS. After Ms Reeves kept the rate of fuel duty flat last October, former Institute for Fiscal Studies director Paul Johnson said: 'Almost unbelievably this Government has followed the practice of its predecessor in freezing rates of fuel duties and not allowing the 'temporary' 5p cut to expire, while raising other taxes dramatically and claiming to be focused on tackling climate change.' But Ms Reeves said hiking fuel duty would be the 'wrong choice' as she unveiled what she called 'very difficult decisions' on tax elsewhere. Ms Reeves said: 'To retain the 5p cut and to freeze fuel duty again would cost over £3 billion next year. 'At a time when the fiscal position is so difficult, I have to be frank with the House that this is a substantial commitment to make. 'I have concluded that in these difficult circumstances – while the cost of living remains high and with a backdrop of global uncertainty – increasing fuel duty next year would be the wrong choice for working people. 'It would mean fuel duty rising by 7p per litre. So, I have today decided to freeze fuel duty next year and I will maintain the existing 5p cut for another year, too. 'There will be no higher taxes at the petrol pumps next year.' A Treasury source said they would not comment on speculation ahead of the Budget.
BreakingNews.ie
an hour ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Starmer holds ‘constructive' call with Taoiseach on Troubles legacy plans
Sir Keir Starmer stressed the importance of 'consensus' in handling the legacy of the Troubles as he spoke to Taoiseach Micheál Martin on Friday. In a phone call with Taoiseach Micheál Martin, the UK prime minister had what Downing Street described as a 'constructive discussion' on dealing with the legacy of the 30-year conflict in Northern Ireland. Advertisement A Number 10 spokesperson said the two men had 'underscored the importance of a way forward that built consensus', before turning to economic issues and the UK-EU relationship. Mr Martin himself echoed Downing Street's comments, tweeting that he had had a 'constructive discussion with British PM Keir Starmer today on a framework for dealing with legacy'. The call came as Mr Starmer faces pressure from some of his own backbenchers over plans to repeal and replace legislation passed by the previous government that halted investigations into all but the most serious allegations involving Troubles-related cases. Downing Street and the Taoiseach described the conversation as 'constructive' (Peter Byrne/PA) The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act has been criticised by human rights campaigners for granting conditional immunity to suspects. Advertisement That provision was ruled incompatible with human rights laws by the Northern Irish courts, prompting Labour to commit to replacing legislation it described as 'flawed and failed'. But that proposal has brought condemnation from former British soldiers who fear it will open the way to vexatious prosecutions and civil claims. Opponents are also reported to include some Labour MPs, including veterans minister Al Carns. A former Royal Marine and special forces officer, Mr Carns was reported by The Times to be considering resigning over plans to repeal the Legacy Act. Advertisement But earlier in the week, Downing Street said the UK government was 'working in lockstep' on the issue. A UK Ministry of Defence source also played down the prospect of Mr Carns quitting, but told the PA news agency it was a 'tricky issue' and 'when you are making policy there is always going to be debate internally'.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
10 years to make indy the settled will? Not a hope
The current administration has been let off the hook for far too many years through the absence of robust, effective and dynamic opposition. The result of this has led to unimaginative, lazy policy-making and the highest taxation levels in the UK to no visible benefit of anyone. The most vehement and hard-hitting critics of the SNP have come from within its own ranks, when even their long-held allegiances weren't enough to quell their outrage at their party's management and policies. There is no spark or dynamism from any quarter of Scottish politics. Scottish ministers are only rarely seen in public except to trot out to apologise profusely for some failure or another. With a predicted high number of established, long-serving MSPs standing down at the next election, along will come a raft of untried, untested candidates lacking in political experience to take their places. The current batch of [[SNP]] MPs is largely anonymous and the much-lauded 'newbies' (for example, Neil Gray, Màiri McAllan and even Kate Forbes) have not exactly set the heather on fire, and many of the current ministers will not be missed. So in answer to the original question posed by Andy Maciver, I would say the likelihood of 10 years being long enough for independence to become the settled will under the SNP, is as unlikely as the Arran ferries fiasco being resolved in a similar timeframe. But we can but live in hope… Colin Allison, Blairgowrie. Read more letters • I read with some interest Andy Maciver's article today. I would call it part two, his part 1 being last Friday ("Move over, Labour and Tories: there's room for a new party", The Herald, July 11). Both articles are excellent, show good insight and are worth a read. The original was in relation to Labour's failed attempt at effective welfare reform. Mr Maciver's opinion seems to be that without significant welfare reform the current financial position within the country is not sustainable. I would agree with that. This week's article provides an independence slant to the argument in that he sees opportunity for the SNP to make political capital with this. He unfortunately does not offer any suggestion as to what it may do. He also conveniently forgets that the "welfare class" (Mr Maciver's term) provides much core support to the SNP and that the SNP has already committed to increasing welfare spending. Also the the middle third of electorate he describes as " they probably work" and are open to the independence argument, are currently paying more tax than anywhere else in the UK. Maybe if next week he is to provide a part 3 he could advise how the SNP could ditch these two flagship policies and still hang onto their vote. Kenny Watson, Renfrew. Romanticising independence Ruth Marr (Letters, July 17) claims that "many of our European friends and neighbours would welcome an independent Scotland into the EU". I'll bet they would, because we'd be net contributors as the UK always was, pre-Brexit to the tune of some £9 billion annually (equivalent to roughly £160 from every adult). Indeed the per capita sum would be a lot more, since by then the ultimate basket-case Ukraine would have been admitted. As for "friends and neighbours", it romanticises what upon independence would have to be a sober calculation, at a referendum, of national and personal advantage. George Morton, Rosyth. Let's end the secrecy Who was the member of the Tory government who decided that a super-injunction should be put in place to make sure that neither the Members of Parliament nor the general public should be aware that this cover-up over the release of the list of Afghans eligible for a safe refuge in the UK after helping out our British forces there to maintain law and order ("Tory ex-ministers defend record as pressure mounts after Afghan data leak", The Herald, July 18)? Rule by super-injunction is hardly the way to run a democracy. It amounts to keeping people totally in the dark, costing the country large amounts of money and threatening the freedom of anyone who, privy to that knowledge, wanted to be a whistleblower on that very subject. We surely cannot be going down the route favoured by autocracies which revel in secrecy and intimidation buttressed by agencies specialising in informers to keep the public both passive and compliant. This situation must be thoroughly explored and the persons responsible for initiating that course of action brought to book for a strategy that brings democracies into even more disrepute than they already deserve. Denis Bruce, Bishopbriggs. • The word scandal is overused, but recent revelations about thousands of Afghans being moved to the UK without any public disclosure let alone debate is scandalous. The Government ought not to be conducting large-scale immigration in secret. It also ought not to be spending taxpayers' money to gag the press from covering a story that is undoubtedly in the public interest to know about. This attack on the free press is both unprecedented and utterly unjustifiable. We already have far more immigrants from cultures vastly different to our own than we can or should support. Afghanistan is a backward Islamic society with a strong tendency to violence and very different conception of society to our own, a lesson we learned on our misadventures there from the 19th century onwards. Secretly airlifting thousands of Afghans to live here at our expense and purposefully hiding that fact is an outrageous attack on the fabric of our society and democracy by those supposed to lead it. Christopher Ruane, Lanark. Give locals a say on wind farms Most renewable energy is generated in Scotland and zonal pricing (which the UK Government has just rejected) would have lowered prices. But this is only part of the problem in the privatised energy industry. For example, the price of (cheaper) electricity is also tied to the price of (expensive fossil fuel) gas. Profits move out of the country. The devolved Scottish Government does not control energy but does control planning. The planning permission is in a mess; it doesn't look at the numbers of wind farms in one area nor the grid and infrastructure problems. Applications for pylons and big wind farms are decided centrally, by ECU ([[Scottish Government]]'s Energy Consents Unit). Just now SSEN Transmission has a massive application for a project at a tiny hamlet at Fanellan. It will involve a 66-acre substation on 800 acres of farmland( 600 football pitches in size). Local people need a meaningful say on what happens in their backyard and the countryside. In the Highlands, Aberdeenshire and elsewhere where wind turbines are, energy goes elsewhere – mainly to England (34% in 2023). This is likely to go up hugely with the construction of the super connector from Peterhead to Yorkshire. Now 53 community councils have asked for a halt of development and for real local involvement and an energy strategy to benefit the Highland Council and [[Scottish Government]]. Professor Brett Christophers who studies renewables, suggests that the state should play a bigger role: "For me [public ownership] is [the answer]. I think the UK is the standout case, not just in electricity but in water too, for public ownership of these assets.' 'In almost every conceivable regard, privatisation has been a bit of a disaster." Scotland needs an independent government implementing a wellbeing economy. Pol Yates, Edinburgh. Is the planning system for wind farms fit for purpose? (Image: PA) Frustration with ScotRail I suggest there should be an inquiry into [[Scottish Government]]-run ScotRail's fitness for purpose. Twice this week there have been major disruptions due to problems with the overhead line equipment. Today, I wanted to go from Bearsden to Helensburgh. I checked before making my journey (as we are advised to do) and found there were limited services from Anniesland to Dumbarton Central and from Dumbarton Central to [[Helensburgh]] Central. I took the bus to Anniesland, where the majority of trains were shown as cancelled with some running. The 14:55 service was shown as "on time" until 14:57 when it was cancelled. The 15:26 was shown as "on time" until 15:28 when it was cancelled. Other passengers on the platform shared my frustration. It seems we have a sophisticated computer-driven passenger information system that is not fit for purpose when serious disruption occurs. No explanation was offered by any person. Automated messages saying "Please listen for further announcements" are clearly inadequate for anyone trying to make a decision about travel options. I cannot believe it is not possible to make an "all stations" announcement. What would ScotRail do in a true emergency where there was no automated "script" available? The irony is that I was going to Helensburgh to pick up my car from the garage. Scott Simpson, Bearsden. Airport questions Your article detailing the increase in "drop-off" charges at UK airports ("Most UK airports raise drop-off fees while busy EU hubs still don't charge", The Herald, July 17) made interesting reading, particularly the reasoning for the increases as provided by Karen Dee, chief executive of Airports UK. I am sure the multitude of air travellers who avail themselves of this facility must wonder: do the taxi drivers or bus companies who also use this facility pay some form of charge? Perhaps the chief executive might like to inform the air traveller, and the general public of the nature and detail of the mandate the various airport owners have received from government and local authorities. Mike Dooley, Ayr. Hey, what about me? The result of Peter Martin's diligent search for a gender-neutral personal pronoun (Letters, July 19) would, he admits, lead to yet more disputation. My bete noire is hearing that John and Jean have invited Joan and I to dinner. The use of "I" instead of " me" in this context pervades all walks of life, including those whose job it is to speak publicly on a regular basis. My raising the subject at my golf club led to a heated argument, not normal in that environment. I used to think that only posh people made this mistake and that I might be considered vulgar in declaring that Jim had driven Jack and me into town. David Miller, Milngavie.
