Brent residents who were constituents of Tulip Siddiq when she was the MP for the Hampstead and Kilburn constituency, will have been following the alleged corruption story with interest. The findings of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards are perhaps more nuanced than she claimed in her resignation letter yesterday. Here it is in full:
WEMBLEY MATTERS News and views on local politics, the environment, climate change, culture and local history
12 comments:
I shall refrain from rendering an unjust judgment regarding Ms. Siddiq, as it would be inequitable to condemn an individual based solely on information that I possess, which is limited to what has been revealed since the matter became public.
Should not Inland Revenue investigate the source of all the money for all the properties and whether there was any money laundering?
Just read she has resigned.
As a former (now more than 20 years ago!) Tax Inspector for 25 years, including investigating some very complex cases, I can confirm that gifts of UK residential property by offshore business entities (property which can then later be sold with no chargeable gain arising, where it has been used as the recipient's private residence), is a method which has been used for money laundering in the past.
However, that's not to say that is what happened in Tulip Siddiq's case. I never dealt with her tax affairs, or those of anyone connected with her. It is up to the investigators in Bangladesh to get to the bottom of what happened over the property in her case, if they can.
Should resign, and where are is anti money laundering evidence required for the transfer of property. Surely no solicitor would accept the transfer without such due diligence?
TS would still be the minister if her family hadn't suddenly been booted out of power in Bangladesh one month after Labour took power here. The new Bangladesh interim regime is investigating what would not have been investigated otherwise.
The last line by Sir Laurie tells Sir Starmer to sack her. Now, if there is no evidence oc wrong doing, why would Sir Starmer be told to sack her. Begs the question If her financial propriety isn’t legit enough to remain a minister, why can she remain a MP?
She used to be my MP until the recent boundary change, and for a period I knew her political approach well, having been a member of the Constituency Labour Party in Hampstead and Kilburn. With regards to her relationship with Bangladesh, the Awami League and her aunt (the ex-Prime Minister) she always wanted to have it both ways - on the one hand she insisted (as in the well known Channel 4 clip) that she is a British MP with nothing to do with Bangladesh, and flatly refused to take up any issues arising from her Aunt's authoritarian regime, on the other hand, members of the Awami League were prominent in her election campaigns (but kept separate to Labour Party members) and it is now open for everyone to see that she received favours from supporters of the Bangladeshi government. There is a stark contrast between the treatment she received from Starmer (keeping her in post despite the evidence and mounting pressure) and that meted out to Louise Haigh, who had told Starmer of a comparatively minor issue years ago. The difference being that Haigh is vaguely on the left, whereas Siddiq is a pure careerist opportunist willing to say almost anything to ingratiate herself with her Party leader. Yet another example of Starmer's double standards when dealing with wrongdoings. That she claims to have thought the flat she was gifted came from her parents rather than others attests to her refusal to ask questions (if true). Her claim that she had done nothing wrong, shows, like Starmer, she believes that those elected to represent the public are entitled to all the freebies they can get.
Sorry to disillusion you, but there are a few solicitors who use their legal knowledge to participate in, or turn a blind eye to, large scale frauds, for a fat fee or share of the profits!
Interesting point you make about her campaign support. You are right that large groups of men would appear at her campaigns, and some of us wondered where they were magicked up from as never saw them around. So you reckon they were from the Awami league? If they were, was it right for her to have such support when campaigning as a British politician?
👏 👏 👏 👏
Tulip Siddiq is exactly what’s wrong with capitalist politics. She gets handed a flat, something workers could never afford AND we’re supposed to believe she didn’t ask where it came from? That’s the kind of privilege these politicians take for granted. If a working-class person had done the same, they’d be investigated and punished in no time. But because Siddiq is part of the ruling class, she gets away with it.
Then there’s her cosy relationship with the Awami League – a regime that serves the rich and crushes workers. She claims to have nothing to do with Bangladeshi politics, but her connections there have clearly helped her climb the ladder here. This isn’t just hypocrisy; it’s class loyalty. She’s using her privilege to benefit herself while turning a blind eye to the struggles of ordinary people, both here and in Bangladesh.
And Labour under Starmer? It’s no better. He protects careerists like Siddiq because they fit into his cosy, pro-business agenda. Labour hasn’t stood for working people in years – it’s just another tool of the ruling class. If Siddiq isn’t fit to be a minister, she shouldn’t be an MP either. But Starmer would rather protect his mates than stand up for justice.
This is why the system can’t be reformed. It’s built to protect people like Siddiq, her family, and the elites they serve. Workers will never see justice under capitalism – the whole system has to go. Real power belongs in the hands of the working class, not corrupt politicians who play both sides and enrich themselves while we struggle to survive.
What do you think?
Post a Comment