Lee Anderson defends anti-Khan diatribe, saying ‘when you’re right, you should never apologise’, but accepts wording ‘clumsy’
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.
Key events
SNP calls for fresh Commons Gaza vote, on motion to mandate government to push for immediate ceasefire at UN
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.
Under Tories buying a home has turned into ‘fantasy’ option for many people, Starmer claims
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.
Some Conservatives condemned Lee Anderson after his claim on Friday about Sadiq Khan being under the control of Islamists, and welcomed the party’s decision to withdraw the whip from him. But other Tories have privately expressed concern about the party’s decision to discipline him, and the Daily Telegraph this morning has splashed on a story about the backlash being articulated in a WhatsApp group for MPs from the 2019 intake.
In their story, which takes in material revealed by Sky’s Sam Coates, Genevieve Holl-Allen and Ben Riley-Smith report:
Some of the messages were posted on Saturday on “The 109”, the name of a WhatsApp group for Tory MPs first elected in 2019, although it also includes a few MPs from other intakes.
Jill Mortimer, the Tory MP for Hartlepool – a seat won from Labour in 2021 – shared a voter email that said: “Today’s news of Lee Anderson’s suspension has been the final nail in your party’s coffin.” The MP asked colleagues: “Anyone else getting these in?”
Sarah Dines, the MP for the Derbyshire Dales, said: “Loads. From random constituents, not known supporters. Interesting.”
Sarah Atherton, the MP for Wrexham, won by the Tories from Labour in 2019, said: “I’ve lodged my concerns due to an instant backlash from members.” Peter Gibson, the Tory MP for Darlington, wrote: “Inbox very positive for Lee.”
On a separate Tory WhatsApp group, Mr Gibson wrote that the Tories “are a broad church and Lee has been a huge asset to our party”.
Some 290 people were detected crossing the English Channel on Sunday, the highest number on a single day for more than a month, PA Media reports. PA says:
According to the Home Office, the cumulative number of arrivals by small boats in 2024 now stands at a provisional total of 2,006.
This is 32% lower than the total at this point last year, which was 2,953, but 49% higher than the total at this stage in 2022, which was 1,482.
The 290 arrivals on Sunday represents the highest daily number since 358 arrivals on 17 January.
Five boats were detected on Sunday, which suggests an average of around 58 people per boat.
There were 29,437 arrivals across the whole of 2023, down 36% on a record 45,774 arrivals in 2022.
Today’s announcement from No 10 about how £4.7bn will be spent on transport projects in the north of England and the Midlands using some of the money saved from the cancellation of phase two of HS2 has been criticised as little more than a re-announcement of money already pledged.
In an interview with the Today programme this morning, Henri Murison, chief executive of business group the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, said:
I’m still kind of happy to receive this money in place of nothing, but it is also coming alongside the fact that many of these same communities will not benefit from HS2 and we still haven’t got enough clarity on Northern Powerhouse Rail, which is still a very important and fundamental part of the north transport system.
We haven’t got the clarity out of the route that was supposed to be announced imminently and instead the government, rather than going to the north-west, which I would have liked them to do and announced that they are definitely going to do Northern Powerhouse Rail, that it’s going to go from Manchester to Manchester airport, through towards Liverpool, instead they come and re-announce something here in Yorkshire.
I don’t fundamentally understand why on earth the cabinet is coming to simply announce something that they already told us about.
Badenoch claims definition of Islamophobia favoured by Labour is flawed
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 uses creates a blasphemy law via the back door if adopted. https://t.co/lhHdSbs6Kz
— Kemi Badenoch (@KemiBadenoch) February 25, 2024
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:
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. https://t.co/mUhz0HfgGZ
— Anneliese Dodds (@AnnelieseDodds) February 25, 2024
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.
Lee Anderson could have Tory whip restored if he apologises, transport secretary Mark Harper suggests
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.
Daisy Cooper, the Liberal Democrats’ deputy leader, says Rishi Sunak should have condemned Lee Anderson’s comments as racist and Islamophobic in his interviews this morning. In a statement she says:
The refusal of Rishi Sunak and his ministers to properly call out Lee Anderson’s extreme comments shows just how low the Conservative party has fallen.
Rishi Sunak needs to condemn Anderson’s comments for what they are, Islamophobic and racist, and make clear he won’t be let back into the Conservative party.
While the Lee Anderson row has been dominating the national news this morning, arguably the most interesting exchange in Rishi Sunak’s morning interview round came this morning when he was asked about the state of the NHS by Georgey Spanswick on Radio York. I have beefed up the earlier post at 8.16am with the full quote from the PM (although you might need to refresh the page to get the update to appear.) But the most memorable comment did not come from Sunak, but from the presenter. She said she had a friend who keeled over at the doctors’ surgery last week, but was told by the GP they would not send her to A&E because they would have to wait for nine hours.
This does not count as news, because news is normally thought of was what we don’t know, or what comes as a surprise, and almost everyone now can tell a story about themselves or someone they know having to wait hours and hours at A&E.
But the fact that something is no longer news does not stop it mattering, and at the election health will be a more important issue than Lee Anderson. In a campaign that will involve constant contact with the public and the media, Sunak may be hearing stories like Spanswick’s all the time. He will need a better answer than the one he gave this morning.
The Rishi Sunak interviews are over. They have not taken us forward very much, but Henry Zeffman from the BBC thinks Sunak hardened the Conservative party’s line on Lee Anderson marginally, compared with what Oliver Dowden was saying yesterday.
PM is hardening the Conservatives’ line a little on Lee Anderson this morning. Before, the position was he was suspended because he didn’t apologise.
Today Sunak said the comments were unacceptable and wrong “and that’s why he had the whip suspended”. No mention of an apology
— Henry Zeffman (@hzeffman) February 26, 2024
PM is hardening the Conservatives’ line a little on Lee Anderson this morning. Before, the position was he was suspended because he didn’t apologise.
Today Sunak said the comments were unacceptable and wrong “and that’s why he had the whip suspended”. No mention of an apology
But saying Anderson should apologise was an implicit acceptance that the original remark was unacceptable, and so broadly the Dowden and Sunak talking points have been the same.
It is understandable why radio presenters with only a very short interview slot, and under pressure to ask Sunak about local issues which never get addressed by the national media, did not interrogate Sunak at more length on this issue. As Jon Sopel from the News Agents podcast points out, if they had, they might have pressed him to explain properly what it was about what Anderson said that was unacceptable.
Just listened to the PM and Mark Harper – both saying Lee Anderson’s comments were ‘wrong’ and whip withdrawn for not apologising.
They refuse to say that he was racist or Islamophobic. So my question is this:
What exactly do they want Lee Anderson to apologise for?
Bewildering— Jon Sopel (@jonsopel) February 26, 2024
Just listened to the PM and Mark Harper – both saying Lee Anderson’s comments were ‘wrong’ and whip withdrawn for not apologising.
They refuse to say that he was racist or Islamophobic. So my question is this:
What exactly do they want Lee Anderson to apologise for?
Bewildering
The Tories have said that Anderson was suspended because he would not apologise to Sadiq Khan for saying that he was under the control of Islamists. (See 8.01am.) But the party has not said whether or not it believes that this remark was Islamaphobic, and it has not said whether or not it thinks it is acceptable for people to make wider claims about “Islamists” having undue influence. In his comment Anderson was actually distancing himself from an even more provocative and extreme comment made by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, who wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph last week claiming:
The truth is that the Islamists, the extremists and the anti-Semites are in charge now. They have bullied the Labour Party, they have bullied our institutions, and now they have bullied our country into submission.
Anderson was saying he thought Braverman was wrong because, in his view, the Islamist take-over has only extended to the capital, not to the UK as a whole.
As my colleague Peter Walker points out, Sunak’s reluctance to talk directly and specifically about Islamaophobia has echoes of Jeremy Corbyn’s reluctance to talk directly and specifically about antisemitism.
Asked on BBC Humberside if he is refusing to engage with Islamophobia, Rishi Sunak says “prejudice of any kind is unacceptable” – a presumably unconscious if nonetheless direct echo of Jeremy Corbyn’s much-used form of words over antisemitism.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) February 26, 2024
Asked on BBC Humberside if he is refusing to engage with Islamophobia, Rishi Sunak says “prejudice of any kind is unacceptable” – a presumably unconscious if nonetheless direct echo of Jeremy Corbyn’s much-used form of words over antisemitism.
It is increasingly notable that Sunak and his ministers seem almost pathologically unable to mention the idea of anti-Islam prejudice (beyond, in a few cases, arguing that ‘Islamophobia’ is a term that shouldn’t be used).
At the start of the Radio Lincolnshire interview, Scott Dalton put it to Rishi Sunak that the transport money for the county being announced today just replaced money that had been previously taken away. He said the county council says it needs £400m just to bring roads in Lincolnshire up to the national standard. Today’s announcement promises just half of that sum, spread over seven years, he said. He said that was only £37m a year.
In response, Sunak said overall funding for the council was going up by 8%.
