George Orwell’s Animal Farm is the sturdiest of political satires for good reason. At the end of the account of a failed revolution by the porcine revolutionaries against their human exploiters, the proletarian pigs watch their leader doing self-serving deals with the ancien regime – and can no longer distinguish the new powers from the old. “Already it was impossible to say which was which.”

In Opposition, Labour had an eagle eye for mercantile Conservatives’ dependency on monied friends to enhance their lifestyles. This approach has not, however, fared so well since Labour took office.

The latest senior figure to choke on a family silver spoon is the Treasury minister Tulip Siddiq. She is reported to have lived in (at least) two properties at different times, gifted to her family by allies of her aunt Sheikh Hasina, who ran an autocratic regime in Bangladesh until her fall from power last August, leaving a trail of accusations of embezzlement and human rights abuses in her wake.

Siddiq cannot be blamed for that – although she has tended to bowdlerise her aunt’s record in interviews, citing homely advice she was given about the responsibilities of power – and her family closeness. There seems to have been little curiosity on her part as to the worst side of her famous relative’s record and alleged complicity (or worse) in human rights abuses that resulted in hundreds being killed by the regime.

Awkwardly, for a minister charged with rooting out financial misdoings, she has also been the beneficiary of network of cronyism in London, which surrounded the UK branch of her aunt’s party, the Awami League.

Property dealings, often opaque or reported late, are at the heart of this. Before she was elected, Siddiq lived in Hampstead, in an apartment donated to her sister by her aunt’s lawyer and political fixer. Her family home is also owned by a member of the Awami League’s UK executive, to whom she pays rent. And more mysteriously, Siddiq is reported by the Financial Times to have had another flat gifted to her by Abdul Motalif, a further associate of the Awami League. It is, at the very least, a story which could do with more clarification than an icy refusal to comment.

It also points to a naivety on Labour’s part in its ministerial dispositions. Siddiq is a talented political and campaigner, close to Keir Starmer. But her network of London contacts and family benefactors in the ousted Dhaka regime might had raised alarm bells before now – and many Treasury figures consider her a poor fit for a job that requires City expertise.

The larger question for Labour is how far it extends licence to itself when leading figures are entangled with connections for personal gain – all the while insisting that it is the party that ends the “one rule for us, another for the ordinary mortals” hypocrisy of the Conservatives in their declining years.

So far, the explanations have not been reassuring. A spokesperson for the minister has said merely that any suggestion that ownership of the properties involved “is in any way linked to support for the Awami League would be categorically wrong”.

But this is not the point at all – there is no suggestion that Siddiq is involved politically with her aunt’s party. But there very much are allegations that she is the beneficiary of property deals linked to cronies who have benefited from the sway of an autocratic regime.

To put it mildly, this raises questions of judgement on Siddiq’s part – and why Starmer’s whips and enforcers did not consider these connections potentially difficult areas for a minister in such a sensitive role.

The relationship between Siddiq and her aunt certainly was close enough for her to go and meet her in Moscow during the signing of a major deal between Bangladesh and the Kremlin in 2013 before she became an MP – and be photographed with Vladimir Putin (another area of airbrushing explanation that should have been firmly apologised for).

Relatives can be embarrassing in politics, and having one you are close to and connected with by virtue of associates and valuable London property entanglements is a red light. An ambitious Labour politician might have done better to stay further away from networks of associates of a despotic leader, however adored she may have been as a relative. Besides having fled the country to India, Sheikh Hasina is now the target of massive accusations of embezzlement.

And while there is no suggestion of personal wrongdoing by Siddiq, it is symbolic of a Labour blind spot thatwill cause it damage. Starmerites spent a lot of time and outrage targeting Rishi Sunak and his Indian-born heiress wife, Akshata Murty, on the grounds that their privilege meant they could not understand the woes of ordinary people and that they gained it by dint of unearned wealth. But this story is also one of atypical wealth, connections to a regime – and a lot of pricey London property which has been of benefit to Siddiq and her family.

Imagine that a Tory minister responsible for cleaning up financial sleaze had been in similar circumstances. Angela Rayner would have been in full flow about rampant cronyism and Starmer would have been wearing his pained expression at the Dispatch Box. Remember the outrage aimed at Boris Johnson, fairly enough, for having a wealthy donor pay for a large chunk of a Downing Street refurb in 2021 and similar accusations of peddling of favours from wealthy hosts of free holidays and similar perks?

What goes around comes around in such matters and something is not quite right in Labour’s understanding of how all this looks and the potential for attrition of its reputation. It took weeks for the leadership to acknowledge that too-chummy dealings with a key donor, Lord Alli – who had been given a Downing Street pass – needed a clear-up after Alli was revealed to have paid for expensive clothes and accessories for the Starmers.

In truth, all parties are prone to overlooking their own foibles for wealth and advantage, while talking sternly to the other side.

Double think comes with a price however – and that price is a steady attrition of reputation. When it comes to politics and global wealth, the biggest accidents happen in the blind spot – and here is another example that when it comes to money and mates, Labour has a glaring one.

----

Anne McElvoy is executive editor of POLITICO and host of the Power Play interview podcast