An ally of Andy Burnham, Louise Haigh, who is considered a potential candidate for a Cabinet post, has acknowledged using artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of an article advocating for increased taxation and public spending. The article, published in the left-leaning magazine *Renewal*, calls for higher capital gains tax rates and suggests loosening fiscal constraints to enable the government to borrow additional billions.

Haigh, who managed Burnham’s Makerfield campaign, has faced scrutiny after an analysis by Archie Hall, a journalist at *The Economist*, indicated substantial AI involvement in the article’s composition. Using an AI detection tool called Pangram, Hall reported that only 6 percent of the 2,500-word piece appeared to be solely written by Haigh, while 57 percent was generated directly by AI. An additional 37 percent was reportedly AI-assisted, where sentences were restructured or revised using software tools.

Hall highlighted the ethical concerns around undisclosed use of AI in political writing, noting on the social media platform X that although the ideas likely originated from Haigh, outsourcing the drafting process to AI without disclosure undermines public discourse. He also commented on the quality of the prose, describing it as muddled, which he said detracts from clear communication.

In response, a spokesperson for Haigh emphasized that the article’s words and ideas are her own. They clarified that the use of AI editing tools was limited to version control, similar to practices employed in many written works. The spokesperson rejected suggestions that Haigh’s authorship was compromised.

The controversy has drawn commentary from political figures across the spectrum. Robert Jenrick, economic spokesman for Reform UK, linked this episode to previous instances of alleged plagiarism in politics. He described the situation as “farcical,” sarcastically comparing it to earlier misconduct and criticizing the reliance on AI tools in formulating policy content.

The incident raises broader questions about transparency and standards regarding the use of AI technologies in political communication and policy advocacy. As AI-generated content becomes more common, political figures and their teams face increasing scrutiny over how such tools are integrated into the writing process and the implications for accountability in public debate.