On Louise Haigh, I do feel that offences of dishonesty, no matter how minor, should be a bar to ministerial office. If Sir Keir Starmer already knew about it, however, he should be defending his decision to appoint, not requiring her to resign.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
The offence seems particularly minor. Haigh doesn't appear to have benefited so her explanation of oversight, not dishonesty, is plausible, it was a long time ago and was declared.
It's hard avoid the conclusion Starmer wouldn't have dispensed with her if she had been more useful to him.
Comments
It's hard avoid the conclusion Starmer wouldn't have dispensed with her if she had been more useful to him.