First, those letters, external and in particular the prime minister’s letter to Haigh, which is blunt in its brevity.
Prime ministers often manage to wax lyrical at considerable length in a letter marking a departure, however tortuous or headline-making the whole saga has been.
In this instance, news of the resignation came within 12 hours of the story first breaking, and yet the prime minister’s words appear perfunctory.
The general mood in the Labour Party and in government is one of slight bafflement.
Many were still getting their head around the revelations – which first appeared on Sky News and in The Times on Thursday evening – when they woke up this morning to the news that Haigh was gone.
Plenty believe the sequence of events described in Haigh’s account was too minor to necessitate her departure, in the absence of any further revelations, though some believe she made the right political decision to go quickly rather than allow the issue to drag on for days.
One senior Labour figure described it as a “good resignation” which may allow her to come back at a later date with a clean slate.
We are also told that Haigh had told Sir Keir about the specifics of this case when he first appointed her to the shadow cabinet in 2020.
It’s understood she didn’t tell the government’s propriety and ethics team about her fraud conviction when she joined the cabinet in July.
They asked her specifically about unspent convictions. Her offence was spent.
This typically means the conviction remains on the offender’s criminal record for life, but they don’t have to reveal it in a job application.
Haigh believed, we’re told, that having disclosed what had happened to Sir Keir in opposition, this was sufficient.
It’s also understood she was unaware of any investigation by her former employer, Aviva, involving more than one mobile phone, as reported by The Times.
Haigh’s team have not denied this, but have not been drawn on it either.
Aviva is not commenting on the saga.
