Starmers ethics scorecard so far

It was an undignified start for Keir Starmer in Number 10. The Labor manifesto spoke of ending the sordid chaos. Despite Starmer's protests during the general election campaign and as he headed to Downing Street that this time ethical standards would be paramount, it was a shaky start anyway. Some would say that ethics is still in decline. But has this been the same as the tsunami of scandals under Boris Johnson, with some aftershocks under Sunak? I don't think so. As a reminder, just taking the P, we had Patel and intimidation, Partygate, Paterson and the retrospective reversal of sanctions, Pincher and learned forgetting, and prorogation. I covered all of this in detail in my book Downward spiral.

So far, no policies have been changed as a result of donor largesse (unlike Bernie Ecclestone under Tony Blair), no public money has been involved (unlike PPE contracts) and no laws have been passed. violated, as in Partygate. There were no widespread integrity violations, no real corruption, and only minor chumocracy compared to what happened before. Few, if any, rules were broken, but perhaps there was something wrong with the applicable rules. For some time, gifts received by ministers were not disclosed and communications were certainly not ideal.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, claimed that gifts were part of the job, while David Lammy said rather vaguely that it was necessary for donors to buy their clothes so that they could look their best when representing the nation. Harriet Harman warned senior Labor ministers not to use excuses as it would only make things worse, which indeed it did. She warned Starmer that accepting such donations was unacceptable. The Prime Minister was slightly smug and sometimes became angry when asked about the gifts; but the story went on and on, and doubling down on defense only made things worse.

What we have seen is an accumulation of errors of judgment, seasoned with a certain crudeness and a lack of wisdom and foresight. This all seems a bit cheap and sleazy, but there is no constitutional crisis, as it threatened to be in the case of Partygate. There is no vacuum of integrity in government and it is dangerous to view Starmer's error of judgment and Johnson's chaos as somehow similar.

Gifts and presents

The bottom line is that Starmer clearly needed a rebrand a year before the scheduled general election, and he accepted gifts (lots of them) of glasses and (high-end) clothes from a Labor peer, Lord Waheed Alli. The presents arrived every week as if it were Christmas. Starmer declared 107,145 gifts; 16,000 in clothes and almost 40,000 in football tickets since December 2019. Alli also bought 5,000 worth of clothes for Victoria Starmer. This was nicknamed Frockgate. The gifts made to Victoria were not declared on the parliamentary list of interests within the required 28 days, apparently on the basis that there was no requirement for such disclosure. He also spent $16,200 on work clothes for Starmer (granted, he needed something) and $2,485 on glasses.

Note, however, that Lord Alli, the generous donor, had already been a peer for decades (although not very talkative in the House of Lords), so he was not seeking to curry favor by making these donations, unlike many people. during the Johnson years (including Richard Sharpe, who played an intermediary role in securing a loan for Johnson at a time when he hoped to become chairman of the BBC). Alli is best known for being Bob Geldof's business partner on Breakfast TV a few years ago, but he also chaired fashion giant Asos. When appointed in 1998, he was the youngest peer in history. He chaired the party's fundraiser before the election and donated 500,000 to Labor.

The story (necessarily interrupted by Gabriel Pogrund of Sunday hours) emerged when it was reported that Alli possessed a pass which gave him full access to Number 10 for unknown reasons, although he reportedly only attended political (not ministerial) meetings held there held. These were called glasses passes.

Several other cabinet members received gifts totaling more than 20,000 euros. There were also holidays and hospitality with friends. Angela Rayner stayed at Allis New York over Christmas with her ex-partner Sam Tarry, a former MP. Starmer used what was described by the press as an 18m² penthouse owned by Alli in Floral Street in Covent Garden. The stay was partly explained by the (natural) need to protect the Starmers' son during his important exam period when the family home in Kentish Town was under siege by paparazzi and protesters. Starmer has repaid some of the money since arriving at Number 10.

Arsenal and conflict

Starmer also accepted hospitality in the form of a seat in the Arsenal directors' box for a match. This was due to security concerns surrounding his presence in the stands, as he had done for many years at his local club. But it is more serious, because there is a potential conflict of interest. The Labor manifesto promised a football regulator. Clive Betts, Labor MP and chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Football, said: I don't think so [the clubs] can influence the regulator being created, but they can influence its powers. Ministers are asked to avoid hospitality from any organization involved in or linked to a regulatory decision under review.

Indeed, the Premier League and the big clubs gave more than 100,000 euros to deputies. It was a big football celebration. The league also gave away five tickets to MPs for the Brit Awards, as well as six tickets to Labor MPs for a Taylor Swift concert, totaling as many as 14,830 people. Starmer also accepted tickets from Cain International (a real estate company) for a Chelsea v Arsenal match in October 2023.

But the gifts that really captured the public imagination were the four Taylor Swift tickets for Starmer, worth 2,800, probably because the entire nation was united in jealousy. This seemed particularly serious given that the star had been given special treatment during police escorts through London after her previous concerts in Vienna were canceled when a plot against her was uncovered.

Some of the gifts were lavish; an Anya Hindmarch bag (whatever that is) for Rachel Reeves and 22,000 (no less) for a designer vehicle for Angela Rayner. The problem is, of course, the subconscious impact of hospitality; the appearance of potential conflict, even if none exists, reduces public trust.

Other things seem to be just an unnecessary extravagance of public funds. Angela Rayner's personal photographer clearly falls into this category. I hope the photos are worth the political aggravation.

But let's put this into perspective: even according to the official record, Boris Johnson accepted more gifts for the fit-out of his number 10 flat than Starmer ever did. We also don't know the precise sums for the cost of Johnson's wedding party and gourmet food during Covid, etc., donated by the Bamford family, owners of JCB.

Detached

Another area of ​​ethical concern relates to money to pay overseas researchers, usually seconded from banks or management consultancies, which Labor accepted when in opposition. Some have since entered government. Their involvement did not need to be declared. Open Democracy reported that they included a lobbyist from Teneo, a major global consultancy with clients including McDonalds, Santander, Thames Water, Unilever, Tata Steel and Equitix.

Appointment

Appointments in the civil service are made following a competitive examination, unless an exception is requested and obtained. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) granted more than 60 exceptions between the general election and the end of August, and in some cases it acted without the appropriate level of information having been provided. Ian Corfield was endorsed for his role in public service, with one exception, but without the SCC being informed that he was a donor to Rachel Reevess campaign. He had been a Labor councilor and was appointed director of the Treasury, a position from which he resigned when controversy over what had not been disclosed arose.

Jess Sargeant has moved to a senior civil service role in the Cabinet Office's ownership and constitution group, having previously been a staff member at Labor Together, the Starmerite think tank.

Emily Middleton has been appointed as a senior civil servant as director general of digital center design at the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology. She had previously been seconded by the consultancy firm Public Digital to Peter Kyle, who became a minister in the department. The memo from the CSC Permanent Secretary's office supporting the appointment did mention that she had been seconded to the Labor Party before the election, but did not include the relevant fact that she had been employed at Labor Together as an officer in charge of political mission. The letter goes on to say: This is a new priority role within the department and must be filled immediately.

And then?

All of this feeds into the popular narrative that politicians are only out for themselves. Trust in politicians has fallen to an unprecedented low. Max Hastings in his Times The chronicle notes that even if there are not enough talented ascetics to fill a cabinet, accepting gifts is not a good idea. The public views freebies as pure greed.

When Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield resigned from Labor around 80 days after the election, she accused Starmer of hypocrisy, given his strong statement that this would be a government of integrity. She went on to say that sleaze, nepotism and apparent greed are off limits. I am so ashamed of what you and those around you have done to tarnish and humiliate our once proud party. Many said, listen, listen.

This imbroglio should make Labor's planned ethics reforms in opposition more urgent but, ironically, could make it more politically difficult for the government to implement the reforms needed to restore standards of public life, as it would result in a repeat constant of all this in the media. . The group of ministers around Starmer do not appear to be corrupt (unlike some of the Johnsonian horde) but they certainly showed naivety. However, none of these offenses constitute hanging.

Johnsonian memories Unchained reminds us of the torrid period when he was in power. There is the risk of false equivalence in saying that all politicians are the same, but the Labor Party puts itself on a pedestal; in the first hundred days he almost fell.