Keir Starmer sacked Louise Haigh as Transport Secretary yesterday.
He knew she had a spent and incredibly insignificant criminal conviction. He really has no excuse for not understanding the importance of spent convictions.
He appointed her knowing that.
Then she criticised P&O for their appalling labour relations, and he wanted to suck up to them despite that fact, and the almost total failure of the corporate governance of that company as represented by its incredibly late filing of accounts.
The difference with Haigh on this issue was serious. It revealed the rottenness in Starmer's version of Labour and that alternatives were available. And so,I have little doubt, someone in Labour's corporate team planted the story in the press that Haigh had a trivial spent conviction on a matter where she secured no gain. It was just too easy.
And then Labour advised her she should resign, even though they admit all the facts were known to them, all along. It would do less damage to the Party, they thought.
Starmer's acknowledgement of Haigh's resignation was terse, rude, utterly uncaring and straightforwardly nasty.
What does this say about Louise Haigh? She made a mistake once, relying on poor professional advice. There but for the grace of God go most people. And she believes in what many might call Labour values. She actually knows what they are.
What does it say about Starmer? I think the kindest description is that he's a duplicitous, callous, two-faced, untrustworthy, coward. He is also clueless. If he couldn't have foreseen the risks in this, the belief that he has absolutely no political antennae is reinforced.
Starmer wanted Haigh to go away. The fact that she has resolves nothing for him. It just proves what a really unsuitable candidate to be prime minister he was, and how unfit to hold office he is.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Nothing to disagree with there – shabby stuff.
Is it not a crime to reveal details of a spent conviction with malicious intent? I trust the plod will be investigating…
I did wonder…..
“Deny everything Baldrick.”
Not a crime apparently, but “Under the ROA [Rehabilitation of Offenders Act], when a conviction has become spent, it is as though, for most purposes, it has never occurred. You are not obliged to disclose a spent conviction, and you should not be prejudiced as a result of one. This means that in law, for a media organisation to report your spent conviction amounts to an untruth, meaning that they are open to accusations of defamation.”
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/reporting-criminal-records-media/
So I guess Starmer was right to ignore her spent conviction when he appointed her. But that only underscores the shabbiness of this volte face.
Agreed
Another case of Starmer’s political antennae not just being off, but being entirely non existent.
John Mcternan- Blair’s political strategist – said yesterday that it was a good and inevitable decision – because the Mail and Telegraph would have kept the story going – and that Starmer had now killed it.
No doubt that makes sense in terms of the ultra short termism of Starmer’s Labour , but the ‘When it hits the Fan’ programme about PR on R4 , which includes David Yelland – ex editor of the Sun say quite clearly that’s utterly counterproductive – the more you pander and suck up to them the more they want.
At least Andy Burnham came out against her sacking.
To paraphrase Yoda,
“The sleaze comes early with this one…”
Working with Starmer and his apparatchiks must be like doing dental hygiene on a shoal of piranhas.
Everything must be devoted to keeping HIS masters happy, far, far more important than the ACTUAL job (of developing sustainable efficient public transport for example).
Another point, does Starmer realise how low he has set the bar for forcing resignations? I hope HE hasn’t got any spent driving convictions (like my 45yr old “due care & attention”), even a declared one, because that’s enough now for a toppling.
Maybe Badenoch will ask him at PMQs, listing each member of his ministerial team, so he can confirm or deny if they are squeaky clean?
Yes, it’s ridiculous, but Starmer has set himself up again, and even the hapless LOTO Badenoch might be able to score on this.
Meanwhile, people suffer, because there really is NO PLAN, because LINO neither understand the problems (climate + economic injustice) nor do they have either the ability, or, to be fair, the desire to alleviate them.
“The sleaze comes early with this one…”
Or as someone in the USA said “In todays political climate anyone who is capable of getting elected should be immediately disqualified from holding office”.
I think this is true in UK as well in the USA.
A little reminder of Starmer’s statement on P&O back in March 2022.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-60821930
His blood seems to have cooled since then, he’s positively COLD blooded now.
Rank hypocrisy.
Spot on Richard. The utter lack of support for Haigh from Starmer and the cabinet is breathtaking. I can’t help wondering if she’s been used as yet another example to the left of the party, that they’re only chance of surviving in the PLP is to be completely loyal to the party line at all times and on every topic. Starmer is beyond ruthless and is living up to all my worst fears.
There is quite a lot about o this that I don’t understand.
* Why did she not contact the police to say she was mistaken about the phone being taken when she found it.
* Why was she advised to say nothing at interview, rather than giving a statement belatedly confirming that she thought it was lost but then found it.
* Why did the police and CPS bother to prosecute for a matter that ultimately led to an unconditional discharge (basically, go and sin no more).
* Why was this matter not publicly acknowledged much earlier – ideally before she was elected.
Most people accept that real people make mistakes: acknowledge them, make amends, and move on. Being public about such things can be a strength not a weakness.
I can’t help the feeling that there is more to this story than the old news. But the result leaves Starmer looking as though he has poor judgment – if this is a resigning matter, why was she appointed in the first place. And also that he is weak – the barest puff from the popular press is enough for him to push a colleague under the bus.
Did you know his father was a toolmaker?
I accept much of that
But the backfire is all on Starmer
Andrew, regarding your third point that she had been given an unconditional discharge. The BBC’s website report on 29 November 2024 said this:
“Haigh has admitted telling police in 2013 she had lost her work mobile phone in a mugging, but later found it had not been taken.
She was given a conditional discharge by magistrates, following the incident which happened before she became an MP”.
I understand a conditional discharge means if she had committed another offence she would also have been sentenced for this crime.
What appears, on the surface, to be a simple error isn’t that at all. She apparently didn’t find it and then hand it into the Police. The Police apparently tracked it when she switched it on turning a simple matter of a misplaced phone, and believing it to be stolen, into something much more serious – fraud.
I have to say this seems like massive police over-reaction and a botched prosecution to me. I have seen this happen on other issues where magistrates sent the clearest message of sympathy to the victim and a slap on the wrist to the police by doing the least possible. I believe her.
My apologies – I was under the impression that the discharge was unconditional but it seems there were conditions (that is, the possibility of resentencing if there was a further offence within a specified period). Which means that after a period of time with no further offences, the discharge ceases to be conditional. It does not really change my point. She was told not to offend again and she didn’t.
McSweeney, the paid up assassin , probably organised this leak. Remember, he was paid to smear Corbyn; this is an easy gain. Haigh stepped out of line because she spoke from a mural position on P&O. It’s now the soft left getting the push.
Here’s what The National newspaper in Scotland had to say about this:
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24761859.morgan-mcsweeney-force-lefty-minister-louise-haigh/?ref=eb&nid=1948&block=article_block_a&u=344c8e6086f8cdd5b046c1b26b2100a5&date=291124
In the comments (which aren’t behind the paywall) a commenter (Scottish Skier) suggests that McSweeney is “an Irish republican plant working to break up Britain” which, if true, would further undermine Starmer’s position.
Meant to post this earlier but I hope I’m not too late.
As further evidence for the prosecution (vs Starmer, that is), I submit the following from the *Guardian*’s account of the sacking:
“Three sources said Haigh had told Starmer about the conviction when she became shadow Northern Ireland secretary in 2020.
“Starmer’s official spokesperson refused to confirm on Friday whether the prime minister knew about the conviction at any point.
“In a briefing with reporters, the spokesperson repeated the same line that “following further information emerging, the prime minister has accepted Louise Haigh’s resignation”.
“In a series of bizarre exchanges, the spokesperson gave the same scripted line when asked what the prime minister knew about Haigh’s spent conviction, what further information had emerged, and why he had appointed her to cabinet if he knew about the offence.”
(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/29/louise-haigh-told-to-quit-by-no-10-over-possible-breach-of-ministerial-code)
I would add that Morgan McSweeney’s fingerprints are probably all over this.
Everything I would want to know about this saga, to make my own mind up, is being concealed.
1. what’s the first thing you do on finding a lost phone, at home or in the park? Switch it on, see whose it is? How long after THAT do you contact police or owner of phone?
2. Who unlawfully leaked personal info (GDP?) about this conviction to the press?
3. How many breaches of ministerial code has Starmer been guilty of? I know that, about 8 acc to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62431183
4. If it wasn’t the caution that did for Haigh, and it wasn’t, then what?
5. What is “further information received”? About another phone? When? Why no other charges after 1st offence & conditional discharge if offence was repeated?
6. When someone is advised to plead guilty, then little evidence is required in court, as we surely learned from an awful lot of quashed postmaster fraud convictions didn’t we? Truth gets distorted in many guilty pleas.
This has all the hallmarks of a political mugging to add to the physical one in 2013. Murky facts, evasive answers, partial accounts. It stinks.
Louise Haigh threw Jeremy Corbyn under the bus to ensure Starmer would consider her despite Corbyn giving her crucial opportunity in shadow roles.
No sympathy from me – you can sell your soul to the Labour right and they’ll say thanks and boot you out. See also: Emily Thornberry.
Starmer had another reason for grabbing the opportunity to push Haigh out. She settled generously with the rail unions.