Starmer’s therapy of Abbott is first severe gaffe in his marketing campaign

Even Diane Abbott’s staunchest defenders would admit that she attracted more than her fair share of negative headlines in recent years.

In 2019 she apologised after being spotted sipping from a canned M&S mojito cocktail at lunchtime on an Overground train, in breach of London Transport’s alcohol ban.

That same year, she went out canvassing while appearing to wear two left shoes from different pairs.

Then there was her infamous radio interview during the 2017 election campaign, when she was shadow home secretary, in which she estimated the cost of employing 10,000 more police officers at a mere £300,000 (equating to some £30 per officer). Flustered, Abbott amended the figure to £80million: the true sum was £300million.

But surely no error was as fateful as last April’s, in which the veteran trailblazing MP – the first black woman elected to Parliament way back in 1987 – wrote in The Observer that while Irish nationals, Jews and Travellers had experienced ‘prejudice’, they had not suffered the ‘lifelong racism’ endured by black people.

Her remarks, which struck many as anti-Semitic, caused outrage. Despite issuing a swift apology, Abbott – who had been a thorn in Sir Keir Starmer’s side because of her unabashed hard-Left views and loyalty to ousted former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn who happens to be her ex-boyfriend – was swiftly suspended from the party.

It seemed an ignominious end to an historic parliamentary career.

And yet in the past 24 hours, Starmer – in the first serious gaffe of his so-far lacklustre election campaign – has made Abbott an unlikely martyr.

On Tuesday morning this week, more than a year after her comments in The Observer, Abbott, 70, had the whip restored in what was meant to be an ‘elegant’ gesture of good faith, so that she could step down from the Commons as a Labour MP, rather than an independent. But if the move was designed to let her retain her dignity, in the end it was trashed.

That same evening, Abbott was aghast to learn that a newspaper – briefed by senior Starmer officials – was splashing on its front page reports that Abbott was to be blocked from running for Parliament again, rather than gracefully retiring.

‘I am very dismayed that numerous reports suggest I am being barred as a candidate,’ said a distraught Abbott.

The move struck many as vindictive – and has horribly backfired.

One Labour source tells me: ‘Someone high up in the Leader’s operation spread the poison about Diane. They just could not let her go out with pride and with her head held high after nearly 40 years as an MP. It’s shameful.’

Her pitiless defenestration has triggered a backlash against Starmer from both the Left and Right of his party. Even his traditional allies were appalled. John McTernan, who was Tony Blair’s political secretary, said the briefings against Abbott – first revealed in The Times – were ‘designed to humiliate her… and it’s shameful’.

The farrago has also raised troubling questions over whether Starmer has been honest about his role in her downfall.

For months, he has avoided answering whether Abbott would be readmitted into the party. The former human rights lawyer, who rose to become the Director of Public Prosecutions, has repeatedly insisted the matter was being dealt with by an independent process that had nothing to do with him.

As recently as March, he told the BBC that the probe into Abbott ‘was an ongoing process’.

However, we learnt this week that Labour’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) in fact completed its investigation into Abbott as far back as December.

The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington subsequently took a two-hour online ‘anti-Semitism awareness training course’. (In the past 24 hours, no one in the Labour leadership has denied the inquiry was completed last year.)

So what’s the reality? When Starmer claimed in March that the investigation was ‘an ongoing process’ – when in fact it had been wrapped up months before – was he ignorant of the truth, or being economical with it?

After all, Starmer is not a mere member of the NEC: he prides himself on his iron grip on his party and its disciplinary procedures. Does he really expect anyone to believe him when he insists he had nothing to do with the NEC’s decision, and didn’t even know about it?

Even those who flinch from Abbott’s divisive brand of hard-Left redistributive politics acknowledge her extraordinary achievements.

As the daughter of a nurse and welder who won a place at Cambridge, her place in British parliamentary history is assured. Despite her propensity for gaffes, which worsened in recent years, and those allegations of anti-Semitism, her supporters will forever hail her as an icon of multicultural Britain.

Many trade unions, including both the Communication Workers Union and Unite (one of Labour’s most generous paymasters) have demanded in the past 24 hours that she stand at the upcoming General Election – for her old party.

Mother-of-one Abbott, who has spoken about suffering from type 2 diabetes, ran for the leadership in 2010 but lost to Ed Miliband, who placed her on the frontbench in charge of public health.

As shadow home secretary under Corbyn, she was subjected to more sexist and racist abuse on social media than any other MP.

Yet this week, despite her exalted place in Labour’s history, she became a pawn in Starmer’s scheme to look tough to centrist voters before the election.

Some of his aides insist dumping Abbott was the right strategy. They believe it makes the leader and his team look tough and decisive. But even I, who disagree with Abbott about almost everything, cannot be alone in thinking that Starmer and his cronies look like bullying, heartless, incompetents in their treatment of this remarkable woman.