This narrative revolves around two former ministers: the initial political casualties of Sir Keir Starmer’s administration, only six months after taking office. Observe the distinctions.
Louise Haigh, the left-leaning ex-transport secretary with striking crimson hair, was unceremoniously cast aside within hours of Sky News disclosing a mobile phone fraud.
In contrast, Tulip Siddiq, the minister for anti-corruption who faced accusations regarding ties to corrupt practices, received support from the prime minister for nearly a month until she yielded to pressure and resigned.
Latest political updates: Chancellor defends her record
Currently, Members of Parliament are drawing comparisons between the Labour leadership’s actions concerning both former ministers’ predicaments. This sentiment is shared not only among MPs aligned with the left of Sir Keir’s faction.
“What this exemplifies is that if you are a working-class woman from the North, you’re out,” remarked a senior MP elected during Sir Tony Blair’s significant 1997 victory to Sky News.
“Conversely, if you are affiliated with the north London metropolitan elite and a colleague of the prime minister, you may endure for weeks.”
On the evening of November 28, Sky News disclosed the report regarding Ms. Haigh admitting guilt for misleading the authorities by asserting that a mobile phone had been stolen.
By 6 AM the next day, she was out, resigning on Friday, November 29 – the day of the assisted dying debate in the House of Commons. An opportune moment to bury unfavorable news.
The first mention that Ms. Siddiq was implicated in claims of her family facing investigations over corruption in Bangladesh emerged in the Daily Mail on December 19.
Initially, supporters of the then Treasury minister and MP for Hampstead and Highgate described the allegations as “unfounded.” However, such assertions are less vocal now that she has departed – ultimately.
The issue for Ms. Siddiq stemmed from the fact that as the controversy lingered, the accusations transformed from seemingly baseless to considerably more serious. What originally appeared as unsubstantiated connections began to seem more credible and increasingly difficult to defend.
For example, Ms. Siddiq maintained that she had never engaged in political discussions with her aunt, the deposed Bangladeshi leader Sheikh Hasina. Yet, last weekend, Sky News disclosed blogs in which she proudly recounted campaigning alongside her and celebrating an electoral triumph.
After nearly a month filled with damaging headlines, did Tulip Siddiq leap from her position or was she compelled to do so? Officially, she tendered her resignation. However, it is highly likely that the prime minister begrudgingly informed her that her time was up during their telephone conversation.
Ms. Siddiq and Sir Keir represent neighboring constituencies in north London. Their electoral counts have taken place at the same location in Camden, which explains the celebratory photos from election night featuring them together.
Furthermore, Sir Keir evidently did not wish to part ways with her, concluding his letter of acceptance of her resignation by expressing a desire “to emphasize that the door remains ajar for you in the future.” Magnanimous.
Nevertheless, it became abundantly clear by late last week that her departure was inevitable. She withdrew – or was instructed to step back – from Rachel Reeves’ contentious trade delegation to China.
In the hours leading up to her resignation, her absence from the government front bench during the chancellor’s address in the Commons made it apparent that she was organizing her departure from the Treasury.
Following her resignation, she tweeted that the examination conducted by the prime minister’s ethics overseer, Sir Laurie Magnus, confirmed that she had neither violated the ministerial code nor acted inappropriately.
Read more:
The background regarding the allegations against Tulip Siddiq
Who is Tulip Siddiq? The departing Labour minister with connections to Bangladesh
However, the concluding paragraph of Sir Laurie’s three-page correspondence to Sir Keir was critical. He expressed it was “regrettable” that she did not exhibit greater vigilance regarding the possible threats to her reputation and that of the government stemming from her family’s close ties to Bangladesh.
Regrettable? Essentially, it appeared unfavorable and was detrimental to the government. Then came the decisive final statement: “You will want to reflect on her continuing responsibilities in light of this.”
Sir Laurie – an Eton and Oxford alumnus, a baronet, a financier in the City for four decades, and a foundational figure of the establishment – was conveying to the prime minister: “While she may not have strictly violated any regulations, my counsel is for her dismissal.”
Why did Sir Keir take an extended period to be convinced that this was the appropriate resolution? For over a week, he asserted that he was adhering to the proper protocol and awaiting Sir Laurie’s evaluation. A typically Sir Keir response to a challenge.
Kemi Badenoch remarked that it was evident over the weekend that Ms. Siddiq’s position had become entirely untenable, yet Sir Keir “dithered and postponed to shield his close associate,” accusing him of “Feeble leadership from a feeble prime minister.”
The Conservative leader will undoubtedly emphasize these points during Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions, where she will also have the chance to intensify scrutiny on the beleaguered Ms. Reeves concerning the economic turmoil.
It is not solely Conservatives who are criticizing Sir Keir for indecision and delays; they are also highlighting the contrasting treatment from No 10 of a northern working-class minister facing difficulties compared to a member of the so-called north London metropolitan elite.