Lee Anderson defends anti-Khan diatribe, saying ‘when you’re right, you should never apologise’, but accepts wording ‘clumsy’ – live | Politics

Rishi Sunak has defended his party’s decision to suspend Lee Anderson for saying Sadiq Khan and London are under the control of Islamists, but not to suspend Suella Braverman for suggesting that Islamists are in charge of the whole of the UK.

In her article for the Telegraph last week Braverman, the former home secretary, said: “The truth is that the Islamists, the extremists and the anti-Semites are in charge now.”

Asked about Braverman’s article, Sunak told broadcasters in Yorkshire:

I think that those comments were not about an individual in particular.

There is a broader point that some of the scenes that we have been witnessing on our streets in recent times are unacceptable.

And we’re now having a situation where, whether it’s private MPs’ meetings, council meetings, or indeed what happened to in parliament last week, where the normal democratic processes that we are used to in this country are being impacted, threatened, disrupted aggressively and in an intimidating fashion.

I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think anyone thinks that that’s right. And I think it’s important that we call out that kind of behaviour as wrong and that we do everything we can to stamp it out.

Although Braverman’s article was about the influence of Islamists in general, it did include a line saying Keir Starmer was “in hock to the Islamists”.

The SNP has called for an independent investigation into what Labour did to stop the SNP’s Gaza motion being put to a vote in the debate last week. It has already been established that Keir Starmer personally lobbied Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, on this issue, shortly before it started. Under normal rules the SNP motion would have been put to a vote first, but Hoyle broke with precedent and allowed a vote on the Labour amendment, which came first.

Some Labour MPs made interventions in the Commons chamber designed to delay the start of the debate, to allow more time for colleagues to persuade Hoyle to ignore the conventional rules. One of them was Chris Bryant, who gave a speech opposing a 10-minute rule bill motion and called for a vote on it, holding up proceedings for about 20 minutes. In an interview with Channel 4 News yesterday, asked if he was doing at his own initiative or because he had been asked to by the party, Bryant replied: “A bit of both, if I’m honest.”

The SNP’s Kirsty Blackman said:

Starmer’s party has been caught red handed following the admission by Chris Bryant. There must now be a full, independent investigation into the appalling behaviour of Keir Starmer and his colleagues, who are no better than the Tories when it comes to manipulating the broken Westminster system.

Labour has accepted that it did make a case to Hoyle as to why he should make an exception to the normal procedure last Wednesday. But it has denied threatening the speaker, and what Bryant was doing last week was within the rules. In a post on X the SNP Alison Thewliss says Bryant criticised filibustering in his recent book on parliament, but the extract she quotes is about filibustering being used to block private members’ bills, which is not what Bryant was doing.

When Hoyle decided to ignore precedent in this case, he clearly expected that there would be a vote on the SNP motion after the vote on the Labour amendment, which he expected to fail. But the SNP motion was never put to a vote because the government chose not to vote against the Labour proposal, reportedly because government whips feared if there was a division, they would lose.

Richard Tice, leader of Reform UK, has said that Lee Anderson was speaking for millions of people “appalled by what is happening to our country” in what he said about Islamists and Sadiq Khan.

In a statement suggesting he hopes Anderson will join Reform UK, Tice said:

Lee speaks for millions of people who are appalled by what is happening to our country. Between them, this gutless government and the Mayor of London appear to have lost control of our streets. The projecting of a vile antisemitic slogan on our Houses of Parliament last week is a shocking illustration of the breakdown of law and order.

In his role as London’s police and crime commissioner, Sadiq Khan is responsible for London’s security. Along with Sir Mark Rowley, he has totally failed in that capacity. Week in week out, he and the police have allowed pro-Hamas, hate-filled antisemitic marches to continue …

Lee Anderson may have been clumsy in his precise choice of words, but his sentiments are supported by millions of British citizens, including myself. Never has Westminster and the craven left leaning establishment been so out of touch with ordinary people.

I do not and will not give a running commentary on any discussions I have with any MPs, but those MPs have my number.

Reform UK, which used to be the Brexit party, was founded by Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, and he remains its honorary president (and owner – it’s a company, and he reportedly owns a majority of the shares). At the weekend Farage said that Anderson would be “a massive help to the cause” and that he would “probably feel happier” in Reform UK than in the Conservative party.

But Farage was not so complimentary when interviewed by Decca Aitkenhead for the Sunday Times for an interview published earlier this month. Referring to Anderson resigning as deputy Tory chair to vote against the government on Rwanda bill amendments, but not voting against the bill at third reading, Aitkenhead writes:

Farage wouldn’t vote for a single serving Tory MP. “A bunch of charlatans and liars.” What about his friend and GB News colleague Jacob Rees-Mogg? “Oh, he’s a very nice bloke, but he’ll always do the wrong thing in the end.” Lee Anderson’s vote for the Rwanda Bill provokes a snort of contempt. “I thought he was a miner. I thought miners were tough.”

The Downing Street lobby briefing was largely taken up with questions about Lee Anderson. Given that this row strays into party politics (the PM’s spokesperson is a civil servant, and leaves the party political briefing to a special adviser), and given that Rishi Sunak has already spoken about this himself (see 8.26am), the No 10 comments did not add a lot to what is already on the record. But here are the newish lines.

• No 10 restated Sunak’s belief that what Lee Anderson said was “wrong”, but was reluctant to explain what aspect of his statement was objectionable. Asked to say specifically what it was that Anderson did that was wrong, the spokesperson replied:

As the PM said this morning, he made comments which were wrong.

Asked to say which parts of Anderson’s comments were wrong, and why, the spokesperson replied:

You’ve got the language that he used. His comments were wrong in their entirety …

He made comments which you will have seen, and obviously there has been significant reaction to. The choice of those words were wrong, particularly in the current climate, where tensions are heightened. As the PM said this morning, it’s really important … that people in public office do not seek to inflame debates in a harmful way.

Sunak and other ministers have been reluctant to say that Anderson’s comments were racist.

• The spokesperson did not explicitly criticise Suella Braverman for what she said in her Telegraph article last week. When it was put to him that Lee Anderson was asked to apologise for saying Sadiq Khan was being controlled by Islamists, but Braverman has not been asked to apologise for saying Keir Starmer was “in hock” to them”, the spokesperson said he did not have anything to add to what Oliver Dowden, the deputy PM, said about Braverman at the weekend. (Dowden said her language did not require an apology because it did not cross a line.) But the spokesperson went on:

More broadly, the PM urge all politicians in public life to seek to take the heat out of the tension and not to inflame the debate.

In her article Braverman said:

On a day when Keir Starmer should have shown strength of character, he bowed to the mob, abused his position, and undermined the integrity of parliament. Conventions cast aside, the speaker’s legitimacy destroyed, and democracy denied. Trust was shattered by Starmer’s grubby backroom deal. The mask has slipped: in hock to the Islamists, he is responsible for one of the most shameful days of our democracy.

• The spokesperson said the government is not happy with the APPG definition of Islamophobia that Labour says it should accept (see 10.14am) because it “conflates race with religion”. The spokesperson said:

As the government has stated previously, there are issues in relation to the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia, which conflates race with religion, does not address sectarianism within Islam, and may unintentionally undermine freedom of speech.

But as I’ve said, we have always been clear that this government does not and will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred.

Lee Anderson has suggested that he won’t be apologising to Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London for saying he is under the control of Islamists (see 8.01am) because the comment is accurate.

In an interview with GB News (where he works as a presenter), the former Conservative party deputy chair said:

If you are wrong, apologising is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength.

But when you think you are right you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness.

Anderson also released a statement he drafted on Saturday accepting that some of his wording may have been “clumsy” but defending the substance of what he said. According to GB News, the statement was not released at the weekend because Anderson refused a request from the Tory chief whip, Simon Hart, to apologise for what he said.

In his statement Anderson said:

Hundreds of people had been arrested for racist abuse on these marches and we barely hear a peep from the mayor. If these marches were about something less fashionable Sadiq Khan would have been the first to call for them to be cancelled. It’s double standards for political benefit …

Seeing the words ‘From the river to the sea’ on Elizabeth Tower made me feel sick to the pit of my stomach.

Khan has stood by and allowed our police to turn a blind eye to the disgusting scenes around parliament. I

It is not my intention to upset anyone, I believe in free speech and have 100 per cent respect for people of all backgrounds.

The vast majority of Muslims are not Islamists in the same way the vast majority of Christians are not conservatives or socialists.

The vast majority of our Muslim friends in the UK are decent, hardworking citizens who make an amazing contribution to our society and their religion should not be blamed for the actions of a tiny minority of extremists.

My words may have been clumsy but my words were borne out of sheer frustration at what is happening to our beautiful capital city.

As Libby Brooks reports, the SNP is pushing for another Commons vote on a Gaza ceasefire this week – but this time one that would actually mandate the government to act.

In a statement explaining what the party wants, Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, said:

The SNP wants to move the debate forward with a fresh motion that focuses on the specific, practical, concrete steps the UK government must now take to help make an immediate ceasefire happen.

As a key ally and defence trading partner of Israel, and a member of the UN security council, the UK has an important role to play – but the UK government, which still opposes even calling for an immediate ceasefire, is not doing anywhere near enough to secure one.

The SNP has a plan to change that. We’ve reached out to the other parties offering talks on a fresh SNP motion, so parliament can finally mandate the UK government to act.

SNP and public pressure forced Sir Keir Starmer to U-turn on his opposition to calling for an immediate ceasefire – and now MPs across parties must work together to get Rishi Sunak to do the same.

The SNP wants parliament to mandate the UK government to use its position on the UN security council to vote for an immediate ceasefire, and follow the advice of independent UN experts to halt all transfers of military equipment and technology, including components, to Israel, and to suspend the issuing of new licences.

The SNP is very unlikely to get its way on this. Partly that is because foreign policy is generally viewed as a matter for government, not for parliament, and there are relatively view votes in the Commons that “mandate” the government on foreign policy. And partly its because, in so far as there is a consensus on parliament, it is probably lined up more behind the Labour position, as set out in its motion last week, than behind the SNP position.

The speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, has offered the SNP an emergency debate under standing order 24. Another problem for the SNP is that SO24 debates are normally held on neutral motions, not substantive ones that could mandate government. As Sam Blewett points out in this morning’s London Playbook briefing for Politico, there is an exception to this rule – but not on that Hoyle is likely to want to follow. Blewett explains:

There is, of course, one big exception to this norm — one that will be distinctly unappealing to Hoyle. His predecessor John Bercow, in his precedent-shredding pomp of September 2019, broke with convention to grant MPs a vote on a substantive motion under SO24 rules. This allowed backbench MPs to take control of Commons business in order to push through legislation blocking a no-deal Brexit. And we all remember how smoothly that went…

What are the chances? The Sunday Times reported that Hoyle has already been warned by senior Tories that granting the SNP a substantive vote would be another, unwelcome departure from protocol. And Hoyle has long vowed not to permit the sort of Commons chicanery allowed under Bercow. Further riling the SNP therefore seems the most likely outcome of today’s negotiations — unless a third way can be found to give the nationalists a chance to re-run their botched debate.

Keir Starmer is doing an event today to promote Labour’s plans to encourage housebuilding, which are part of the party’s growth mission. In a statement released in advice, Starmer said that under the Tories the prospect of being able to buy their own home has become “a fantasy” for many people. He said:

Britain’s workers and Britain’s interests have been failed. Living standards have plummeted, as has the traditional British belief that if you work hard, it pays. For too many people a higher wage is beyond reach, and buying a home has become a fantasy.

My mum and dad enjoyed the stability of a home they owned and a faith that their kids would have more opportunity than they did. And it wasn’t just them, its engrained in the British psyche – you work hard, you can get on. Work will pay. Life will give you chances.

The Conservative party’s economic choices run completely against those values. Meanwhile, their promises on levelling up are empty. The Tories aren’t just betting the house, they’re betting yours.

It’s time for change. My Labour government will be different. We’ll run a patriotic economy where Britain’s interest is centre stage, and Britain’s hard working families reap the rewards.

Anneliese Dodds, the Labour party chair and shadow secretary for state for women and equalities, told the Today progamme this morning that the government should adopt the definition of Islamophobia used by Labour and other major parties. This is the definition produced by the all-party parliamentar group on British Muslims, which describes Islamophobia as “rooted in racism and .. a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”.

But in posts on X last night Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary and minister for women and equalities, said “anti-Muslim hatred” was a better term. She explained:

We use the term “Anti-Muslim hatred”. It makes clear the law protects Muslims. In this country, we have a proud tradition of religious freedom AND the freedom to criticise religion.

The definition of “Islamophobia” she [Dodds] uses creates a blasphemy law via the back door if adopted

As the minister for the Equality Act, I also know the definition of Islamophobia that @AnnelieseDodds and Labour have adopted is not in line with law as written. Anti-Muslim hatred is more precise and better reflects the UK’s laws, as others have noted: https://civitas.org.uk/content/files/islamophobiaopenletter.pdf

UPDATE: This is what Dodds posted on X last night in response.

Strange that numerous parties in the UK – including the Scottish Conservatives – have adopted this definition then.🤔

The first step towards dealing with a problem is accepting that it exists.

Mark Harper, the transport secretary, has suggested that Lee Anderson could have the Conservative party whip restored if he apologises for what he said about Sadiq Khan. In an interview on Sky News this morning, asked what Anderson would have to do to be readmitted to the party, Harper replied:

I hope he will reflect on what he said and he will retract those comments and apologise … But I’m not going to tell the chief whip how to do his job, that’s for him …

[Anderson has] contributed a lot in the past. I’d like to see him be able to contribute to the Conservative party in the future.

Harper said Anderson’s comments were wrong but, despite being asked repeatedly, he refused to say if he considered them racist.