You know a political furore is getting cut through when the competence and judgement of those at the centre of it is being questioned in their response, almost as much as for the original missteps. The handling of the new government’s series of scandals over freebies, donors, and political appointees has so become a story in itself. It’s even cost Sue Gray her job as the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff.
The Times has called out the “worrying amateurishness and dysfunction” in the PM’s top team in allowing this scandal to run on for more than a month (and counting). Sue Gray was forced to resign less than 100 days into the Starmer premiership, and our new government is already being forced to declare there will be a “reset” after the Budget at the end of the month. In the days of New Labour, the accepted wisdom was that a Minister would be expected to resign if their scandal was still in the newspapers after a week.
With the government now beset by ethics scandals, I want to look at how ethics in politics works. I argue that beyond the minimum legal standards set out in the Ministerial Code, among other places, ethics and integrity in public office are instead most often determined by public perception. With that in mind, we can see how good PR around ethics is essential to resolving these issues and preventing scandals.
Setting the record straight
In late August, Keir Starmer gave a gloomy speech in the sunny Rose Garden of Downing Street, ostensibly about fixing the foundations of the country. His remarks contained no specific proposals to increase transparency or address issues of money and influence in politics.
Among the questions the PM was asked were ones about the appropriateness of the Number 10 pass given to Labour donor Lord Alli and of the appointments to non-political civil service roles of other party donors and political advisers. Starmer largely batted these queries away by insisting that these items had been properly declared and partly by saying he wouldn’t take lectures from the Tories on such matters given their past record.
This was a prime, high-profile opportunity to decisively draw a line under these issues and lead the agenda with new reforms to politics and money, using the language of restoring honesty and integrity and rooting out the rot.
Weeks and countless negative stories later, the PM has mentioned in passing that his government is now working on ‘new principles’ for political donations. The move is a long overdue reaction and risks being seen as “a day late and a dollar short.” Certainly, it’s come too late to save his erstwhile Chief of Staff or to prevent his government from getting bogged down in questions of ethics ahead of an important Budget.
Driving purpose
Starmer is the latest Labour leader to be measured (unfavourably) against Tony Blair and his formidable gifts for persuasion and his perception of the electorate.
In the early months of his premiership, Blair himself faced a donor scandal which he feared would finish his career. Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone donated £1m to the Labour Party before the 1997 election, and the Blair Government then faced criticism for subsequently announcing proposals in office to exempt F1 from a tobacco sponsorship ban.
Although this was a period before the 24-hour news cycle and social media, Blair conceded that he had been slow to deal with the scandal. However, recognising this, he then put himself forward to tackle the lingering questions and accusations head-on in a long-form interview on the BBC’s On the Record.
By contrast, Starmer’s response to the present sleaze scandals has been characterised by a lack of transparency, a perception of entitlement and defensiveness, and a reluctance to get out ahead of the issue. These all result in the same thought in the minds of the swing voter – hypocrisy. Beyond an adherence to the letter of the law, Blair’s management of the Ecclestone donation scandal demonstrates that public trust in government improves with quick and transparent action.
For his part, Blair recently told Politico his advice for the current government, that they were always going to come under attack in modern politics, but beyond managing the PR relating to ethics issues, “the single most important thing is always to have a driving purpose as a government.” The former PM argued that having a clear overall mission in office would help them rise above the slings and arrows. The British people will then make up their own minds whether the administration has defined, articulated, and defended its mission (or is it five missions?) sufficiently.
Getting out ahead of the issue
When the MPs expenses scandal broke in 2009, David Cameron was swifter than Gordon Brown to spot the danger. He quickly moved to ensure his Shadow Cabinet repaid questionable claims and he imposed new rules on what Conservative MPs could claim for in the future.
This was a classic scandal in the sense that politicians either failed to see how the public viewed these expense claims or their defences relied too much on the letter of the rules and were not rooted in the spirit of the Nolan Principles of Public Life – like selflessness, honesty, integrity and accountability. Similar to the present ethics issues relating to the government, the expenses scandal didn’t relate to whether politicians had adhered to the minimum legal requirements of our political system, but whether they’d lived up to the standards we expect of officials in public life.
Some years later, in 2014, Immigration Minister Mark Harper proactively took the decision to offer his resignation to then-PM Cameron after discovering that his cleaner did not have permission to work in the UK. Harper said: “Although I complied with the law at all times, I consider that as immigration minister, who is taking legislation through Parliament which will toughen up our immigration laws, I should hold myself to a higher standard than expected of others.”
The common theme in both of these examples is that the political figures moved swiftly and decisively to get ahead of the issue and deal with it. This was particularly the case for Mark Harper, who resigned before the press discovered the issue. When scandals about ethics occur, they must be dealt with honestly, quickly and thoroughly.
Getting out ahead of an issue in this way means you’re more likely to be seen as trustworthy rather than opportunistic or slow in action. Adhering to higher standards than the letter of the law is likely to be rewarded in our political system in the long term. Indeed, a positive first step is adhering to higher standards (or at least the same standards) as those you’ve held your political opponents to when they were serving in government.
First impressions count
A briefing war in Downing Street broke out in the early weeks of our new government, and it’s striking how quickly the factionalism and sniping have taken hold in this very young administration. Seasoned New Labour observers say the Blair-Brown team relationships only started to deteriorate in the second term, from 2001 onwards.
Starmer’s Chief of Staff Sue Gray appeared to be unpopular among some of her colleagues and was immediately on the receiving end of noxious briefings to newspapers. It was quickly suggested that she also appeared to be being paid more than the Prime Minister, while at the same time was attempting to drive down the pay of Special Advisers (SpAds). This apparently caused the SpAds to collectively join a trade union. These issues, though, would not have been enough to displace Gray were it not for the ongoing scandal of donations and appointments that has surrounded the government.
The Daily Telegraph, among others, covered some of the criticism from former colleagues of Gray. Revealingly, one suggested: “It’s absolutely astounding to me that she didn’t pick up on the freebies to Labour’s front bench. It is hypocritical in that she was responsible for checking ministers’ interests and conflicts in the Cabinet Office.”
Perception becomes reality, and initial perceptions are difficult to shift once they set in. The public might be uninterested in SpAd pay, but when it was combined with ethical scandals, it gave the impression of a government that was incapable of managing its own affairs. As both internal and external pressure grew, it seems Gray’s position became untenable, and she formally resigned, likely on the point of being pushed, on Sunday 6th October.
The problems extend beyond Gray, though, and the current ethical scandals risk engulfing the new administration if it’s not careful. For context, it has taken Labour only 13 weeks for their YouGov approval rating to fall lower than Rishi Sunak’s record low of 19%. And the latest polling largely shows Labour down four points since the election, with Reform UK appearing to be the main beneficiaries of this decline. A recent poll also showed Labour ahead of the Conservatives by only a single percentage point.
If new Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney is going to reverse Labour’s fortunes, he will have to understand that simply suggesting that the rules have been followed or giving back a few freebies is not enough to restore public confidence.
Make a virtue of necessity
In thinking about how Labour might do better, let’s take one of many recent ethics scandals as an example.
As an Arsenal fan, I’m sympathetic to Keir Starmer’s wish to watch them often as a season ticket holder.
However, most football supporters aren’t the Prime Minister of the country. Life changes once a PM kisses the hands of the Sovereign. There are things they simply cannot do in the role – driving their own car, for example, or going for a stroll outside without having a security detail.
The defence offered by Starmer that he sits in the director’s box at Emirates Stadium to save the taxpayer money on security costs is a challenging one. It subliminally communicates that he feels entitled to attend Arsenal games on a near weekly basis.
The logistical challenge of holding a paid-for season ticket and the office of Prime Minister could have given Keir Starmer the opportunity to do something positive. Instead of becoming embroiled in an ethics scandal over the issue, why not auction off matchday tickets to raise money for the many charitable and social causes Arsenal FC is involved in? These might include those that align with the government’s priorities, such as the No More Red campaign to tackle the root causes of youth violence and knife crime or the Twinning Project, which delivers coaching, sporting, and refereeing courses in prisons to help rehabilitate and provide routes to paid employment for prisoners.
While attending Arsenal games in a director’s box is not a breach of the Ministerial Code, the ethics that govern our politics are widely assumed to extend beyond the Code. In fighting a PR battle around ethics, the appearance of propriety and integrity matters far more than the letter of the law.
Freebiegate could become Starmer’s Partygate or mini-Budget
The risk is that this freebie furore turns into Keir Starmer’s Partygate scandal: a crisis in confidence, which slowly poisons the patience of the British people over many months. Our system at present sets out what should be regarded as minimum standards for the ethical behaviour of elected officials. Whether the rules are broken or not, if the public believes a government is incapable of behaving ethically, the results can be fatal.
Remember that the Daily Mirror first broke the story of Downing Street Covid parties back in November 2021, that Sue Gray’s report wasn’t published until May 2022, and that the vote of no confidence in Boris Johnson’s leadership was held one month before his resignation in July.
The drip-drip corrosive impact of stories for eight months could have been averted with a stronger initial response to the first reports of alleged rule-breaking (and yes, of hypocrisy). I share the analysis of William Hague and others that Mr. Johnson could have survived the Partygate scandal had he had a different response to it. Similarly, Liz Truss may have been able to stay in office for a slightly longer period after the mini-Budget had she acted differently. For example, by not completely discarding her personal political credibility by sacking Kwasi Kwarteng in order to try to restore the country’s economic credibility. The Blair government could have handled the Formula One donations and other sleaze scandals better but also much worse – particularly were it during a more politically polarised, fragmented, and social media-dominated environment.
The benefit of the doubt in a government is very hard won in opposition and extremely easily squandered (usually at a moment of hubris). As a result of our political constitution, it is trust and confidence that ultimately determine a political leader’s term in office. Undermining this, and often failing to defend it, means politicians see their power slip away like a fistful of sand.
Stephen Lynch.
Stephen Lynch is a freelance writer on politics and economics. His work has been published in the Times, Daily Telegraph, and Independent. He worked in CCHQ’s Press Office (2015-17), and writes in a personal capacity.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.