House of commons is first-past-the-post, so in a lot of constituencies another left-of-center party serves as a spoiler. There are legitimate reasons to want to vote strategically.
They’d be better off ploughing that money into a dark-money influence campaign to get the UK into the Schengen zone. (If hedge funds opposed to EU tax transparency rules could pull the UK out of the EU, surely it’s worth a try.)
Starmer’s really ballsed this up hasn’t he. First unambiguous unforced error (some might say letting Elphicke into the party was an error but it’s clear what the logic was there).
Yeah, I agree. I understand why he wants to push out MPs who aren’t loyal to him, because the more loyalists you have, the easier it is to get things done. But the optics of this one were terrible. Still, she’s running, now, and she’ll almost certainly hold the seat for Labour.
As a casual UK news observer I’ve seen hints on have I got news for you about a bit of a hassle surrounding her. However I do not understand what is about, nor willing to pay the financial times.
Can you (or anyone else that feels the calling) provide a tldr?
American here (who’s a fanatical lover of HIGNFY and British politics); lemme take a crack at it. Please correct me where I misspeak, Brits!
Diane Abbott has had to deal with scandals for much of her whole time in power, many of which have come from her saying dumb shit, like Mao did more good than harm. Now, as the first Black MP, one could argue that these were outsized scandals, blown up by the British rags, but still.
The most recent scandal came when she lost the Labour whip job for saying Jews experience prejudice, not racism. That scandal ran up until the general election was called last week, where it was unclear if she’d be selected to run again in her seat. She adamantly wanted to (and seems like she will stand), and party leadership was very indirect about if they’d let her, despite the whip being restored.
It looks like she’ll be running again now, but it’s just been so messy on the Labour side, and really hasn’t made Keir or his party leadership look great. In an election where Rishi and the Tory’s are self-destructing, it should be an easy Labour win if they don’t keep fighting with themselves.
She said something foolish and antisemitic, and was suspended from the party. She then was reinstated to the party very late in the day, but there were rumours she wouldn’t be allowed to run as a Labour candidate again, then rumours that she would run, but against Labour, but now she say she’s back and she’s running for Labour.
Slightly more detailed summary:
Diane Abbott published a letter which claimed that Jews didn’t experience real racism because they mostly pass as white. People were very annoyed about this because it’s obviously not true, but also because of Labour recently having been found to be institutionally antisemitic during the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn (a close political ally of Diane Abbott). She was quickly suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), pending a full investigation. She almost immediately apologised, retracted what she said in the letter and agreed to attend some sort of anti- antisemitism course.
Recently, it was rumoured (I don’t think actually confirmed) that the investigation had finished months ago and recommended no further sanction, but the findings weren’t made public or even given to Abbott. She was allowed back in to the PLP at the beginning of the general election campaign, but there was another rumour that she wasn’t going to be allowed to run in the election, which the party refused to confirm or deny, saying it was an internal matter for the National Executive Committee. Various senior party figures then said they thought she should be allowed to run, including, eventually, Keir Starmer.
There were then further rumours that Abbott was so upset by the debacle that she might run against Labour. But, as the headline says, she’s now decided to stand for Labour.
Ill add to this. There are viable rumera that right wing labour members spread the rumers about her not being allowed to stand. Viable because the party leadership is confirming no one had their authority to message Diane Abbottsaying she was nor able to stand. So some crap happened somewhere.
Diane Abbott is constantly attacking Kier Starmer and the party based on hearsay. Keir and the Labour Party have conversely said nothing but nice things about Abbott. People are always comparing Abbott and Elphicke, who was allowed to defect in order to damage the Tory party but not stand in the next election, where is the comparison here? Abbott is just vindictive, self serving and has lost any political nous she may have had in the past, she should retire before she destroys her legacy completely.
I’m generally inclined to give the leadership the benefit of the doubt, but it really doesn’t seem like they’ve communicated with her well. I can understand why she’s finding info from other sources if she’s getting nothing from the party, which seems to be the case.
That is fair enough, but the thing to do when you are told something like you are being de-selected is to ask for confirmation from the party within a reasonable timeframe. Not go out and have a rally with your supporters and the press to tell the world how disgusting you think your party leadership is.
Edit: although now she has been selected maybe she did exactly the right thing, for herself, even if it was at the expense of the party.
Back when bitcoin mining was all the rage, we had server farms setting up their own power… perhaps it would be in the best interest for AI datacenters to run their own power as well, all renewable. A good investment in cutting that power bill.
There’s no need to require that, as long as server farms (and other big energy users) pay the full cost (including environmental externalities) of their energy use.
As an organising principle for western foreign policy, the “rules-based international order” has long suffered from some disastrous flaws. It is a phrase that means nothing to a normal person. As a result, it is a deeply uninspiring concept. People might go to war to defend freedom or the motherland. Nobody is going to fight and die for the RBIO.
We invaded Afganistan and Iraq for “the motherland”? We destroyed Libya for “the motherland”? We are running proxy wars in Ukraine and Taiwan and Israel for “the motherland”?
Is “the motherland” in the room with us right now?
The author loses it starting from the title, he should have stopped at “America breaks global rules”. But it is still an interesting opinion piece given the source.
ft.com
Newest