Tulip Siddiq is gone, but MPs’ frustration at Starmer remains
Anti-corruption minister quit amid disputed allegations she was linked to wrongdoing by her aunt, Bangladesh’s deposed prime minister Sheikh Hasina
–
The 30-minute delay before Tuesday afternoon’s press briefing at 10 Downing Street had tongues wagging well before Keir Starmer’s deputy spokesperson finally appeared. Long waits are rare and a delay of half an hour is — in my experience — a sure sign that something is up. Speculation was rife as to why this might be and when my phone finally buzzed, the reason became clear: Tulip Siddiq, the anti-corruption minister, had resigned. The announcement came after a whirlwind of controversy and an independent adviser’s “fact find” that, while clearing her of breaching the ministerial code, exposed enough reputational damage to make her position untenable.
But the resignation raises uncomfortable questions: if Siddiq was found not to have breached the ministerial code, why step down? And if her departure was inevitable, why wasn’t it done sooner?
Siddiq’s troubles stem largely from her familial ties to Bangladesh’s political elite. Her grandfather, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the country’s first leader, while her aunt, Sheikh Hasina, his daughter, served as prime minister until her ousting last year amid mass protests. She had long been a controversial figure with a number of allegations made against her, and Hasina now faces a staggering 100-plus charges of corruption, murder and theft — all of which she and her allies deny.
The problem for Siddiq is not her personal connections to Hasina — no one can help who they are related to, or be judged for having a personal relationship with their relatives — but rather the fact that the Labour MP is herself named in the investigations taking place in Bangladesh.
There are a number of properties linked to Siddiq that are currently under the spotlight, including a £2.1m north London house owned by a member of her aunt’s political party that Siddiq currently rents, and a flat in King’s Cross gifted to her by an associate who is linked to the same Bangladeshi political party. Initially, Siddiq claimed the property was a gift from her parents, but then later said she could not remember the exact details. Finally, there is a Hampstead property — transferred to Siddiq’s sister by a lawyer linked to Hasina’s government — where Siddiq had been registered as living.
Muhammad Yunus, the man who has replaced Hasina as Bangladesh’s leader, has said the homes should be handed back to the Bangladeshi government and accused the family of “robbery”. He has insisted Hasina’s whole family, Siddiq included, are investigated over claims they have embezzled roughly £4bn.
Further scrutiny has been drawn by a 2013 nuclear power and arms deal between Bangladesh and Russia, in which Bangladeshi court documents allege Siddiq was involved and embezzled funds. Siddiq has denied involvement but was pictured with Putin alongside her family. She insists she was in Russia merely to visit her aunt. A final allegation, also denied by Siddiq, involves claims she used her influence to secure land in the diplomatic zone in Bangladesh for her family members through bribery and fraud.
Each allegation adds a new layer of complexity. Though the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, Laurie Magnus, found no breach of the ministerial code when he investigated two of the accusations, his report noted Siddiq’s failure to “appreciate the reputational risks” — especially given that she was the anti-corruption minister. Magnus noted Siddiq’s inability to provide conclusive documentation and her lack of transparency — such as her claim to have been unaware that the King’s Cross flat came from a political associate, despite having signed a Land Registry transfer form. That fact in particular is repeatedly being mentioned in almost every conversation I am having on this topic with people in Westminster.
But the fallout from this isn’t just about Siddiq; it’s also about Starmer’s judgment. Multiple sources within Labour have questioned why Siddiq was ever appointed to a ministerial role. Her connections to Bangladesh’s political elite and the controversy that surrounds her family were hardly a secret. One Labour MP described her appointment to me as “an incredibly avoidable own goal”, while another lamented the lack of foresight in bringing her into the fold.
This is not the first time Starmer has faced such criticism. Louise Haigh, the former transport secretary, stepped down last year after it emerged she had misled police about her mobile phone being stolen. At the time, sources close to Haigh suggested to me Starmer’s team knew about the incident before she was appointed and in the House of Commons the prime minister refused to provide details of private conversations when he was asked.
As one senior Tory gleefully pointed out to me: “This is the second minister Starmer has lost, and both were due to issues from before their appointments. It’s bad judgment.” While the Conservatives are no strangers to scandals, they have used this opportunity to frame Labour’s leadership as careless.
The issue isn’t just technical wrongdoing but the erosion of public trust. In politics, perception often matters as much as reality. Labour’s anti-corruption minister being embroiled in corruption allegations from another country is an irony that’s impossible to ignore. For Starmer, whose leadership pitch has long centred on competence and integrity, such episodes are deeply damaging. This will therefore be a big wake-up call.
Shehab Khan is an award-winning presenter and political correspondent for ITV News.
Topics
Get the Hyphen weekly
Subscribe to Hyphen’s weekly round-up for insightful reportage, commentary and the latest arts and lifestyle coverage, from across the UK and Europe
This form may not be visible due to adblockers, or JavaScript not being enabled.