Are the Tories being two-faced in their response to Lee Anderson's remarks? Analysis by Millie Cooke

But is the Tory leadership being two-faced in its horror at his remarks?

In the 2016 mayoral elections, the Conservative Party fought an extremely controversial campaign surrounding Sadiq Khan's religion - and the wider party barely batted an eyelid.

Zac Goldsmith's campaign to be Mayor of London repeatedly attempted to link Khan to Muslim extremists. Just four days before voting began, Goldsmith penned an Op-Ed in the Mail on Sunday, headlined: "Are we really going to hand the world's greatest city to a Labour party that thinks terrorists is its friends?"

Meanwhile, the then prime minister David Cameron attempted to link Khan to Suliman Gani - a Muslim man who Cameron falsely claimed supported Islamic State.

Gani is on record as supporting an Islamic state, not the terrorist group of that name. He also turned out to be a Conservative supporter who shared platforms with leading members of the party.

There was some criticism of the campaign, with the chair of the Conservative Muslim Forum Mohammed Amin saying he was "disgusted" at the "risible attempts to smear Sadiq Khan". Former Tory chairman Sayeeda Warsi said it was "appalling”, while Ken Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, said it had become clear the campaign was a mistake.

But ultimately, Zac Goldsmith retained the backing of the Tory party as a whole and went on to fight the mayoral election under the party banner.

So what has caused this discrepancy?

Some have suggested that class might feed into it. David Cameron and Zac Goldsmith were both Eton-educated and are well known to come from money - the latter having inherited more than £1billion from his father. Lee Anderson, however, comes from a working-class background. He worked as a coal miner and for a local citizens' advice bureau before becoming a Labour councillor.

But is the idea that the Tory Party pays more attention to allegations of Islamophobia when the person involved comes from a less affluent background too neat of an explanation? It is possible to argue that such an explanation shifts the focus onto another, easier-to-navigate issue: classism. It allows us to avoid having to address whether or not our approach towards racism and Islamophobia in the UK really has changed.

So that brings us to the second possibility. Is the explanation simply that time has moved on?

While there is a significant difference between how the 2016 campaign was perceived compared to how Anderson's comments have been received, it's also important to acknowledge that it has been almost ten years.

Perhaps the eight-year gap really has seen a change in attitudes. The current climate - with tensions more inflamed than they have been in years - may well mean people are more ready to have conversations around Islamophobia, or racism in general.

With anti-Muslim hate crimes having more than tripled over the last four months, some argue it's more important than ever to hit back at what they perceive to be Islamophobic remarks.

Perhaps it is this that has put Sunak in such a difficult position this week.

Islamophobia of any kind is unacceptable - something Sunak, on record, appears to accept. But he is toeing the line currently, attempting to distance himself from Anderson's remarks without categorically specifying whether or not he believes them to have been Islamophobic.

But his opponents are circling. Richard Tice - who backed the sentiment of Anderson's comments - has issued a veiled call for him to defect to Reform, while Sir Keir Starmer has claimed Sunak "lacks the backbone" to call out Islamophobia in his party.

Sunak's overall response to the current row will set a precedent going into this year's election campaign. He needs to be very careful how he proceeds.