Earlier this month, Louise Haigh said the quiet bit out loud: that Andy Burnham and his allies had been planning to take power for “at least the last year”.

Her comments, on the BBC Political Thinking podcast, enraged allies of Sir Keir Starmer, but Ms Haigh owed him no personal loyalty after he ignominiously forced her resignation in November 2024.

On Monday she emerged as the right-hand woman to the new prime minister as she was appointed Chancellor to the Duchy of Lancaster and First Secretary of State.

Ms Haigh will play a pivotal role in driving through Mr Burnham’s political agenda, much as she played a key role in his ascent to No 10.

Striding into Downing Street, Ms Haigh’s more demure appearance signalled an astonishing reversal in her political fortunes.

Just two years ago, many believed Sir Keir forced her resignation as transport secretary when a story broke about her previous conviction for fraud, despite No 10 knowing about the incident.

Ms Haigh had 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 after pleading guilty.

While Mr Burnham suggested, as new Labour leader, on Friday that he wanted a united party, there was little love for Starmer loyalists in his Cabinet appointments, but rewards for key allies.

Mr Burnham began his premiership at lunchtime on Monday in tried and tested fashion – with a public plea for Labour MPs to rally behind their new leader.

Less than half an hour after being confirmed as Britain’s seventh prime minister in a decade at an audience with the King, he was standing outside the black door to No 10 urging his party to ditch the rancorous infighting and fall in line.

“I will give this my all, and I ask you all to pull with me,” he implored in a none-too-subtle message to the restless backbenchers who forced forced Sir Keir Starmer out two years after he won them their seats in a historic landslide.

As he addressed his cheering supporters under clear blue skies, he asked for their help in building a “new national sense of unity, of common purpose and positivity”.

But even at this point, his promise of peace and harmony jarred with his actions. In a five-and-a-half-minute inaugural address, Mr Burnham did not mention his predecessor once.

Far from trumpeting Sir Keir’s achievements, he instead warned that Britain’s leadership had “not been good enough” and the political class needed to “raise our game”.

Over the next few hours he would oversee a purge of the Starmerites from the top echelons of government that would reshape the Cabinet in his own soft-Left image.

It was shortly after 1pm that Mr Burnham entered No 10 for the first time as prime minister, hand in hand with his Dutch-born wife, Marie-France van Heel, who was wearing an £890 lilac midi dress designed by Victoria Beckham for the occasion.

One of his first acts in office was to hold a huddle with journalists, at which he suggested he would use “flexibility” within the fiscal rules to unlock more borrowing. In response, Britain’s borrowing costs rose at the fastest pace in the G7, providing the new premier with an early warning shot over the power his every word now carries.

At this point he had planned to turn to the task of appointing his Cabinet. But both the ministers who served under Sir Keir and Burnham allies hoping for elevation to the top table were instead made to wait nervously by their phones as the new Prime Minister instead put off the task to take a call from the world’s most powerful man.

In his first call as premier he flattered Donald Trump by praising the US president for co-hosting the World Cup, before attempting to reassure him over his commitment to increasing defence spending and heralding his plan to reindustrialise Britain.

Mr Burnham even managed to get an invitation in for Mr Trump to visit Manchester, which now hopes to host the G20 summit when it comes to the UK next year.

The lull in political drama was broken just after 3.30pm as Sir Keir’s closest allies began announcing to the world that they had been sacked. Steve Reed, the former housing secretary, was first out of the door with a scathing parting shot to the colleagues who had brought down his former boss.

In an angry resignation letter, he wrote: “Keir Starmer showed loyalty to me by appointing me to his Cabinet. I make no apology for returning that loyalty. It’s what is expected in functioning teams, and I hope those who did not show loyalty to Keir will now show it to you.”

Other big beasts would soon follow. Twenty minutes later, David Lammy, the former foreign secretary and justice secretary, published his own letter in which he made plain that he had been forced from his role rather than falling on his sword.

“I would have been proud to continue serving in Cabinet,” he wrote. “But a new prime minister is entitled to build his own team.”

The biggest casualty of all came eight minutes after that, when Rachel Reeves announced that she was leaving her job as chancellor. Allies swiftly briefed that Ms Reeves, who was expected by some Labour insiders to be offered a place in Mr Burnham’s cabinet, had been offered a move to defence secretary but had turned it down.

Darren Jones, who as chief secretary to the prime minister was one of Sir Keir’s most loyal allies, swiftly headed to the pub after announcing his departure.

Other sackings were less surprising. Lord Hermer, the controversial ex-attorney general who was one of Sir Keir’s closest friends, fittingly announced that he had been dispensed with on BlueSky, the social media platform favoured by liberals who boycott Elon Musk’s X.

As the resignation announcements came thick and fast, attention turned to would-be replacements. Journalists hovered around Downing Street, waiting to see who would be the first to make the short walk for an appointment with the new Prime Minister.

Few had expected it to be John Healey. Yet a few minutes before 5pm it was the former defence secretary who was seen striding along Whitehall and then queuing up patiently at the wrought-iron gates for admission to the heart of government.

His position at the front of the queue immediately prompted speculation that he was Mr Burnham’s pick for chancellor, which was formally confirmed a little more than an hour later. It came as a shock to Westminster, which had widely expected either Shabana Mahmood or Ed Miliband to be handed the second-most powerful role in the land.

The pair had arrived at Downing Street together while Mr Healey was still in No 10 in what appeared to be a deliberately choreographed show of unity. They smiled, with Mr Miliband putting an arm around Ms Mahmood’s shoulder, as they walked up the street together to discover their fates.

Mr Miliband found he was being promoted from Energy Secretary to Foreign Secretary as reward for his role in securing the Prime Minister’s coronation. Ms Mahmood, meanwhile, got her publicly stated wish of remaining in the Home Office, where she will now get to see through her reforms to immigration and asylum policies.

Mahmood confounds tipsters

Despite Ms Mahmood being heavily tipped for the chancellorship, her allies said she was not offered the role and had made clear she wanted to stay where she was.

Yvette Cooper made way for Mr Miliband, being demoted to health secretary, whilst Pat McFadden was a rare Starmer ally to hold onto his job, remaining in post as Work and Pensions Secretary to oversee any welfare reforms.

By 7.30pm the other key women in Mr Burnham’s successful campaign to win the Makerfield by-election, which smoothed his path to Westminster, were also walking into No 10 to be rewarded.

In the early hours after his by-election victory Mr Burnham thanked Louise Haigh, Anneliese Midgley and Lucy Powell for their support and joked that these were women that he would not mess with.

Their year-long campaign to change the leadership was now complete. All three will play key roles in helping Mr Burnham change both the Labour Party and the country.

Later in the evening, Angela Rayner was given her old job of Housing Secretary back less than a year after she was forced to resign following a Telegraph investigation into her £40,000 of unpaid stamp duty.

The finding of no deliberate wrongdoing or carelessness by HM Revenue and Customs earlier this year cleared the path for her to return to Government.

Just before 11pm, Wes Streeting was finally unveiled as the new Defence Secretary, hours after he was photographed walking up Downing Street and entering No 10.

Haigh Shrugs Off Fraud Conviction to Be Burnham’s Right-Hand Woman

The appointment of a senior political adviser or minister is often closely examined by both the public and the media. When an individual has a previous criminal conviction, that scrutiny becomes even greater. The headline “Haigh Shrugs Off Fraud Conviction to Be Burnham’s Right-Hand Woman” reflects this kind of controversy, raising questions about rehabilitation, public trust, and the standards expected of people in positions of political influence.

Supporters of Haigh argue that people should not be permanently judged by mistakes they made in the past, particularly if they have accepted responsibility and demonstrated personal growth. Many legal systems recognise the principle of rehabilitation, believing that individuals who have served their penalties and rebuilt their lives deserve a second chance. From this perspective, a past conviction should not automatically prevent someone from contributing to public service if they possess the necessary skills, experience, and commitment.

Those in favour of her appointment also point out that leadership positions should be based on current ability rather than solely on past events. If Haigh has shown professionalism, competence, and dedication over many years, supporters believe she should be assessed on her recent achievements. They argue that excluding qualified individuals because of historical mistakes could discourage rehabilitation and reduce opportunities for talented people to contribute positively to society.

However, critics believe that political leaders must be held to especially high ethical standards. Public officials are responsible for making decisions that affect millions of people and are expected to maintain public confidence in government. A conviction involving fraud may be viewed as particularly significant because honesty and integrity are fundamental qualities for anyone handling public responsibilities. Opponents argue that even if the conviction is in the past, it may still influence public perceptions of the government’s credibility.

The controversy also highlights the role of public opinion in democratic societies. Politicians must not only act lawfully but also maintain the confidence of the people they represent. Even when an appointment is legally acceptable, questions about ethics and public trust can remain. Governments therefore need to balance the values of fairness and rehabilitation with the importance of maintaining confidence in public institutions.

Andy Burnham’s decision to appoint Haigh may also be interpreted as a sign of loyalty and confidence in her abilities. By selecting someone who has faced criticism, he may be signalling that he values competence and believes people should have opportunities to move beyond their past. At the same time, the decision exposes him to criticism from political opponents who may argue that the appointment reflects poor judgment.

Ultimately, the success of Haigh in her new role will likely depend on her performance rather than the controversy surrounding her appointment. If she demonstrates honesty, effectiveness, and professionalism, public attention may gradually shift from her past to her achievements. On the other hand, any future mistakes could revive concerns about whether the appointment was appropriate.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding Haigh’s appointment illustrates the complex balance between accountability and forgiveness in public life. While many people believe individuals deserve a second chance after paying their debt to society, others maintain that political leaders should meet the highest ethical standards. The controversy serves as a reminder that trust is one of the most valuable qualities in politics and that public confidence must be earned through consistent integrity and effective service.