Dawn Butler’s Retweet Row: Labour’s Double Standards on Race Politics & Racism

In a political drama worthy of a soap opera, Labour MP Dawn Butler has landed herself in hot water again, this time for retweeting comments that label Kemi Badenoch, the new Conservative leader, as “white supremacy in blackface.” Butler shared a post on X (formerly Twitter) from Nigerian journalist Nels Abbey, who described Badenoch’s win as a “victory for racism” and even offered “tips for surviving the immediate surge of Badenochism.” This is not subtle criticism or even mild disapproval; it’s a full-throated accusation wrapped in identity politics and drenched in divisiveness. Butler was demonstrating the prejudice she apparently abhors from "Whites" in judging someone adversley by the colour of their skin, after all how could a black person be a Tory?

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, the man tasked with restoring “decency” and “professionalism” to Labour, is now facing mounting pressure to respond. However, so far, Starmer has chosen to stay silent, refusing to remove the whip from Butler. Kwasi Kwarteng, Britain’s first Black chancellor and a Conservative MP, didn’t mince words, calling Butler’s comments “really hateful” and accusing her of “race-baiting.” He argued that Butler’s view reduces everything through a “prism of race-baiting and divisiveness,” and he’s not alone in this assessment.

But why would a supposedly progressive MP like Butler endorse such incendiary language? And why would Starmer let it slide? This incident is more than just a social media gaffe — it highlights Labour’s troubling double standards and the deep-rooted factional divides around race and identity.

1. The “Right Kind” of Diversity? Only if You Follow the Labour Line

Labour has long claimed to champion diversity, but its tolerance for divergent voices seems limited. Dawn Butler’s retweet appears to hinge on the unspoken rule that only certain kinds of diversity are acceptable — namely, those that align with left-wing ideology. Kemi Badenoch, a Black Conservative woman, breaks this mould. She is unapologetically conservative and has frequently criticised progressive orthodoxies, from gender ideology to critical race theory.

In endorsing Abbey’s “white supremacy in blackface” line, Butler isn’t simply critiquing Badenoch’s politics; she’s casting her as a racial traitor. The implication? Badenoch’s identity is invalid unless she supports left-leaning values. It’s as if Labour’s commitment to diversity ends the moment a Black individual steps off the progressive script.

This double standard reveals a Labour Party more interested in ideological conformity than true representation. Starmer may praise Badenoch’s win as “a proud moment for our country,” but he’s clearly reluctant to bring Butler to task for suggesting that Badenoch’s identity is invalid. And why? Because it doesn’t fit the progressive narrative that Labour has carefully constructed.

2. Race Politics as a Weapon: Divisive Rhetoric or Legitimate Critique?

For some on the left, “race-baiting” is just part of the political toolkit. Butler’s decision to retweet Abbey’s post reflects a growing trend in British politics, where allegations of racism are used to discredit political opponents without engaging with their actual ideas. Instead of addressing Badenoch’s policies or her record, Butler and Abbey resort to personal attacks couched in racial terms. It’s a strategy that may resonate in some Labour circles, but it risks alienating the broader public, who are growing weary of seeing every debate reduced to questions of identity.

Kwarteng, in his response, put it bluntly: “If Kemi had lost, [Butler] would’ve said the same thing. She’d have said, ‘Of course Kemi lost, because the Tories are racist and Britain is racist.’” This sort of rhetoric is self-sealing; whether Badenoch won or lost, Butler’s view allows her to paint the outcome as evidence of systemic racism. It’s a reductive approach that refuses to allow for complexity or good faith in political opponents.

But what’s most troubling about this brand of race politics is how it erodes the potential for genuine dialogue. Rather than building alliances to address shared concerns, it drives wedges by insisting that certain voices are only valid if they fit an ideological mould.

3. The Starmer Dilemma: Why Labour’s Leadership Can’t Control Its Left Flank

Keir Starmer’s reluctance to discipline Butler reflects a broader problem within the Labour Party. He’s tried to steer the party away from the Corbyn-era radicalism that alienated swathes of voters, yet figures like Butler serve as a reminder of the factional divides that persist. Starmer knows that moving against Butler could create backlash from Labour’s left flank, where there remains significant support for her brand of identity-driven politics.

Yet this indecision comes at a price. Starmer’s silence on Butler’s “white supremacy in blackface” retweet signals to voters that Labour may tolerate inflammatory rhetoric when it serves their own side. It’s a double standard that risks undermining Starmer’s efforts to present Labour as a mature, responsible alternative to the Conservatives. After all, Labour is quick to condemn Conservatives for even a whiff of divisiveness, yet appears all too willing to look the other way when its own members cross the line.

Starmer’s unwillingness to discipline Butler also speaks to a deeper challenge: Labour’s inability to reconcile its commitment to inclusivity with the ideological rigidity of some of its members. The party preaches unity, but incidents like this reveal that it’s less of a “big tent” than Starmer would have us believe.

4. The Public’s Growing Weariness: Voters Want Ideas, Not Insults

For the general public, Butler’s comments likely reinforce what many already suspect: that parts of Labour are more interested in moral grandstanding than substantive policy. Voters aren’t impressed by mudslinging; they want solutions to real issues — housing, the NHS, economic inequality. They want to see politicians debating ideas, not throwing accusations of “white supremacy” at their rivals.

Badenoch’s rise, as a Black woman leading the Conservative Party, challenges the neat narrative Labour likes to push about diversity and inclusivity. It’s a reminder that people from all backgrounds can hold a range of political views. If Labour is serious about representing Britain’s diverse communities, it must recognise that not all minority voices will conform to its own ideology. By attacking Badenoch on the basis of her race rather than her record, Labour risks alienating the very voters it claims to support.

And if Starmer can’t bring himself to act decisively, he risks squandering the credibility he’s worked so hard to build. By standing by as Butler’s remarks go unpunished, he signals that some forms of divisive rhetoric are perfectly fine, so long as they come from his own side of the aisle.

Conclusion: Labour’s Hypocrisy on Diversity and the Cost of Silence

The Butler retweet row is about far more than a single offensive post. It’s about Labour’s double standards on race, its inability to tolerate divergent views, and its reluctance to hold its own members to the standards it demands of everyone else. Butler’s comments — and Starmer’s silence — expose a party still wrestling with the ghosts of its radical past and struggling to define its future.

If Labour wants to be taken seriously as a party of government, it must hold itself accountable, even when it’s uncomfortable. True inclusivity means respecting diversity of thought as well as identity. And that means defending the right of all voices to participate in the political conversation — even those that don’t conform to Labour’s ideological expectations.