December 1, 2024 - 8:00am
For a man with little flair for performance, Keir Starmer seems to be courting drama during his first few months in office as prime minister. But while the previous passes for glasses scandals at least had a bit of glamour to them, this week’s transgression involving former transport minister Louise Haigh is a little, well, dull.
Getting well ahead of the headlines, Haigh announced her resignation earlier this week. Her crime was a minor one: telling fibs to the police about her phone being stolen 10 years ago. After what she described as a “terrifying” mugging, Haigh says she thought her phone had been nicked, only to find it at her home. She later pled guilty to a charge of misleading the police.
We all know that the papers love a good backstory to pick at — and perhaps Haigh was right when she claimed in her resignation letter that her minor criminal offence would “inevitably be a distraction”. But one can’t help but wonder: should Haigh really have had to give up her brief over a minor incident that happened a decade ago?
The fact that Labour stood by Lord Alli, whose behaviour was far more ethically dubious than Haigh’s, should raise a lot of questions. But then again, maybe there was more to it: Haigh was, after all, a former shop steward MP from Sheffield who had embarrassed Starmer by offering her support to P&O Ferries workers and nationalising the railways. Maybe this was simply an easy way of getting rid of a trouble-making minister.
However, it’s also true that Haigh was not doing a good job in the transport department. Her declaration of love for Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, including labelling legitimate opposition to them merely stoking the “culture wars”, is enough to make many people happy to see the back of her. (Sadly, her replacement, Heidi Alexander, is even worse.) But this holier-than-thou approach that Starmer’s government seems keen to adopt is a problem. Most voters don’t care that an MP has a colourful past — lots of them voted for Boris Johnson — and Starmer will get no brownie points for Haigh’s exit. What we do care about is our democratic demands being met, and that politicians focus on doing the job they were elected to do.
If Starmer’s goal is to create the illusion of an upstanding government, sacking all his staff who have made mistakes isn’t going to work. It’s perhaps unfortunate that this resignation took place in the same week that a Labour MP has won a victory to legalise assisted dying, a move that many in parliament and the public feel is morally questionable.
Indeed, it rather neatly reveals the superficiality of Starmer’s brave new administration. On the outside, everyone is keen to look squeaky clean. But when it comes down to the substance — on everything from keeping pensioners warm to raising children to popping off the terminally ill — the shine is beginning to rub off.
Ella Whelan is a freelance journalist, commentator and author of What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism.
Ella_M_Whelan
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI suggest you look at the detail that suggests that Aviva had her down for “multiple phone-related incidents” and reported her to the police.
Do share. I have been wondering what had been going on there.
I suspect the ‘fraud’ conviction was just a handy excuse the get rid of someone whose actions were not part of the ‘team’ approach. The pay deals for ASLEF railway workers were not agreed with the Treasury first allegedly.
You could argue that this is the consequence of Labour having a large majority – people feel free to depart from party discipline if they are so inclined.
You didn’t need inverted commas around fraud I think. It seems it was Aviva who reported her to the Police for more than one telephone.
She was convicted of fraud for more than one incident of phone ‘misappropriation’. If she didn’t declare her conviction when she took up the cabinet role, she knowingly lied. If she did declare it, Two Tier should follow her out the door.
How can a convicted fraudster be in responsible for taxpayers’ money.
Quite. The author demonstrates both touching naivete in believing Louise Haigh’s latest version of events without question and a complete lack of research into the background details you and I area already aware of. She lied once already. It’s far from certain Haigh’s version two is the complete and final explanation of the events.
Ella Whelan is a teenager who works/worked for Spiked.
There was clearly a lot more to the story than she has let on or, as the author says, this seems far too minor to resign over. There is also the fact that she had worked for the Met as a special so she knew better.
That her replacement is even worse is the big problem with this government – is Starmer / Reeves were to resign, who would replace them that would not be even worse!
Believe me, her employer would not have referred the case to the police unless there was more to it (the suggestion is multiple incidents of a similar, fraudulent nature). The usual procedure is to issue a warning or dismiss.
Claimed the insurance and passed them on to Lord Alli ( for Two Tier)?
Starmer could not afford to carry “Louise from Aviva” as well as “Rachel from Accounts”. This a real shame as I would have loved the emerging witicisms. A new series of The Office would also be fun.
“Rachel from Accounts”
Very good. I’m not going to be able to see her now without that line running through my mind 🙂
She was Rachel from the Call Centre – no way could she qualify as an accountant.
CRS- Customer Relation Services.
It’s the sort of silly scandal that can easily distract government, opposition and press.
The press tends to be most annoying a out things like this and the opposition jumps on the bandwagon of scoring a few cheap political points.
Save your energy folks. HM Government have plenty of real problems to deal with. HM Opposition have lots of work to do in developing a coherent right of centre strategy. There are far bigger and more interesting frauds and failing for the ladies and gentlemen of the press to chase.
The journalists job is done, allowing the humourists work to begin.
Surely the real question is why the Police prosecuted someone who made a mistake after being the victim of a crime.
If she genuinely thought her phone had been stolen and then found she still had it, then the prosecution was scandalous.
I remember one west London robbery squad issuing £80 fixed penalty notices for wasting police time due to the ubiquity of false reporting (for insurance purposes).
Mistake? The court clearly disagreed.
Furthermore, there’s some doubt about the material Ms Haigh supplied to the police after the ‘robbery’ (metadata on photos) and it’s also reported she was subsequently ‘let go’ from her job.
Should she have resigned? Not my call. Shall we (as usual) blame the police? Oh, go on. Why not?
But you will note that she never challenged it as an unsafe conviction. And she now has access to the renowned legal capabilities of Keir Starmer to help fight her corner and right this alleged wrong. But she still did not. Surely that must tell you something ?
Even the most cursory background research here will tell you there’s a little more to this story than Louise Haigh is telling you.
If that is the case, and she was trying to defraud her insurance company, then of course the prosecution and conviction were justified.
And that would reflect exceptionally badly on Starmer.
So we should be told the full story, not least to demonstrate that the Police acted properly.
However I have not heard Labour clarify the circumstances yet.
And when have you ever heard Labour “clarify the circumstances” ?
Their official policy is “greater transparency”.
Their actual policy is obfuscation and delay. Throw out a minimum, incomplete and slightly inconsistent amount of information and hope that everyone “moves on” and loses interest.
Quite why you would choose by default to doubt the police and legal system when Louise Hague herself voluntarily pleaded guilty baffles me.
You might also want to ask yourself whether it is any coincidence that Louise Haigh’s current (rev 2) explanation of events involves playing the victim card and whether there is any supporting evidence for her latest version of events.
And once again, if she were a victim of injustice, why would an ex-DPP (Starmer) not be fighting her corner ?
I have a bridge to sell you.
Starmer
s govt is already beginning to feel like " The end days ”He certainly cannot continue as he has begun and still over 4 years left !
She has clearly not told the full story when getting selected for the Shadow Cabinet.
So I suspect there is more to this than ‘didn’t fess up when she found the phone’
Truly horrifying. Like the blurb from the back of a paperback, only one we have no choice but to read
What voters want, in a government of any hue, is competence.
Unfortunately, there is currently no indication that Starmer and his crew possess any measurable amount of competence, at all.
This is what’s particularly disconcerting to the public at large – the abject quality of individuals finding their way into government ranks. It can only lead to rank government.
Louise Haigh’s replacement, Heidi Alexander, is much better qualified for the job (Deputy Mayor for Transport at Greater London Authority involved in Crossrail / Elizabeth line opening etc.) so why wasn’t she given it in the first place?
I think the “popping off the terminally ill” one (as the author puts it) will prove quite popular. Having a government do something the people actually want is something of a novelty.
EW is correct: too many of the cabinet and minters are sanctimonious, self-satisfied ‘activists’. This, of course, is not a problem limited only to the Labour government, but applies to a great number of our educated elite. They remind me of a car sticker from a few years back: “Ask a teenager while he still knows everything.”
Lying to the police is now a minor crime? Being convicted of a previous or not crime is not enough to cause a resignation from senior government office? And if it was a Conservative MP?
Get yer facts right before writing an article. Haigh is a crook, with form. Allegedly this was not an isolated incident and she had form for losing her phones, and her previous employer reported her to the police.
She was convicted of fraud, and should have been sacked for that alone. On top of that, she was rubbish at her job and should never have been appointed in the first place, the Kneeler must have been desperate. Finally anyone with hair that colour cannot be taken seriously in a professional role.
Correct on all points including the final one.
After any sentence is served, it is unreasonable to extend punishment for a lifetime.
A minor affair of ‘non-disclosure to the media’ has only revealed the weakness of the current British goverment- cowardly and amoral too.
They find their mirror in the Scholz government in Germany and together are going to get into deep water with the Trump administration.
Ethically dubious and multiple fraudulent criminal actions are two different kettles of rotting fish.
That you cannot see the difference, precludes you from judging them, let alone writing about it.
Yes, she needed to resign. She seems to have ‘lost’ two phones.
Three, according to The Times.
This journalist needs to research her subject before labelling it a “minor crime”
There was no shine to be rubbed off……