Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on July 17, 2025, 10:17:36 AM
-
Given Starmer's remarks at the time, and the recent suspensions, difficult to see how he avoids suspending Abbott.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwye24vjnn8o
-
And she is suspended
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g8v33g1dgo
-
Chris Mason in why there was little choice but to suspend Abbott. He notes at the end that thete is the possibility of a new left wing party, and invites through the article, without stating it outright, the inference that Abbott chose the words deliberately in the interview to get suspended and make aligning herself with any such new party easier.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9k7yje44eo
-
I can see why there was little choice.
Still, it's a pity that inflammatory language like "An island of strangers" doesn't come in for the same sort of heavy-handed inquisition.
-
I can see why there was little choice.
Still, it's a pity that inflammatory language like "An island of strangers" doesn't come in for the same sort of heavy-handed inquisition.
Double standards works wonders, works wonders, works wonders, so have some today.
Starmer would say he apologised like Abbott did initially and so that was ok.