Starmer’s judgment is desperately poor – the Sue Gray affair proves it
Sue Gray #SueGray
As hacks waited impatiently for the update on the Sue Gray inquiry, a nebulous missive materialised. Replete with thinly veiled fury, the statement from Oliver Dowden, the Deputy Prime Minister, accuses Gray of refusing to co-operate with an investigation into the details of her departure from Whitehall to work for Sir Keir Starmer.
Dowden heavily implies that she broke the Civil Service code – but stops short of saying it explicitly. Though we have yet to see the full report, it is clear that Gray’s lack of co-operation hampered the process. This raises constitutional questions; for a senior civil servant to seemingly engage in secret meetings with the Leader of the Opposition, and then refuse to explain her actions, seems little short of extraordinary.
At this stage, it would be astonishing if Labour were allowed to proceed with the appointment, but whatever happens next, the damage is done. When Starmer took over as Labour leader, he pitched himself as a man of honour and integrity; a refreshing change from Tory sleaze and the turmoil of the Corbyn years. He was Mr Rules, Mr Forensic. Looking “forensically” at the Sue Gray affair, it’s a major own goal.
Now, a long and distinguished Civil Service career hangs in the balance, along with the principle of Civil Service impartiality. Though bias in the Civil Service is a very real problem, it’s too easy simply to blame this row on “the Blob”. Ms Gray seems to have shown a remarkable lack of judgment and integrity in accepting Labour’s blandishments. Historically, senior civil servants have often gone on to work for the Opposition; the real problem is that Gray appears to have broken her own code by having those conversations in secret.
The anonymous briefings from “Sue Gray’s allies” have been laughable. The whole outcry is nothing more than a “political witch-hunt”, one fulminated to The Guardian. Of course, the crucial thing about witch-hunts is that Goody Proctor and co were actually innocent, whereas Gray is not publicly denying that she engaged in covert talks about joining Starmer’s team while working on the partygate probe. “I’m not a witch,” yells Professor McGonagall. “I just cast spells and fly around on a broomstick.” Some are even deploying a version of the old “corrupt copper” defence: “I’ve resigned from the job, so you can’t investigate or discipline me.”
Labour has subsided into a prolonged strop; lots of pearl-clutching and, “How very dare you!” Starmer accuses the Government of trying to “resurrect” the story because they don’t want to talk about the cost of living. Others suggest a stitch-up by beleaguered Civil Service head Simon Case, who, they say, is desperately trying to curry favour with Conservative ministers in a last-ditch bid to keep his job.
Perhaps Case simply has a point. Even people who aren’t overtly political sense a tangible “ick” factor here. And this in turn prompts serious questions about Starmer’s judgment in attempting to woo Gray. Through her role on the propriety and ethics team, Gray was privy to vast amounts of highly sensitive information about ministers and special advisers. She was the one charged with setting the terms of Civil Service impartiality –adjudicating what was within the rules and what wasn’t – and on occasion, playing a central role in sacking ministers.
As a result, Gray has probably created more political enemies than any other civil servant. During partygate, she became a household name and a national byword for probity – something Starmer capitalised on at the time. So the fallout from her appointment was eminently foreseeable; of all people, Starmer and Gray ought to have recognised this as a serious conflict of interest. Yet the Leader of the Opposition didn’t think twice about hiring her.
What could have possessed him to choose such an obviously compromised person? In believing that constitutional impropriety doesn’t count when the cause is just, Labour may have been “getting high on their own supply”, as the saying goes. They perhaps assumed that the rules didn’t apply to them – just as they accused Boris Johnson and co of behaving as though above the law. Desperation may have played a part. With an untried team lacking experience in government, Starmer may have felt ill-prepared to navigate Whitehall without a seasoned operator like Gray at his side. Or he might just be displaying political naivety on an industrial scale.
Labour’s stonking lead in the polls owes far more to Government failure than to the Opposition’s political nous. The Gray debacle is just one of many recent unforced errors. Appalling statistics abound over the Tories’ record on law and order. And yet some wise soul at Labour HQ chose to run attack ads implying that Rishi Sunak was a paedo-protector, perhaps forgetting that until September 2013, Starmer was sitting as director of public prosecutions on the Sentencing Council – the body that provides guidelines on jail terms. But they can never resist over-egging the pudding.
The furore over the attack ads reminded some voters of Boris Johnson’s old Jimmy Savile slur, reportedly now resurfacing at focus groups. This was unfair enough the first time, but the person responsible for reviving it now isn’t Sunak – it’s Starmer. Seeing the Labour leader “doing politics” is like watching Mr Blobby running around trying to defuse a bomb. You simply cannot be that clumsy.
During the glorious “rotten boroughs” episode of Blackadder, Baldrick insists that he’s fighting the election “on issues not personality – because he doesn’t have a personality”. Although hardly a “personality politician”, Starmer continually bigged up his own personal integrity. He now only has himself to blame for his troubles. “Move along, nothing to see here,” doesn’t wash when you’re Mr Rules™.
How much damage will this do at the local, and subsequent general, elections? Luckily for Starmer, the main battles won’t be fought over Gray but on housing, the economy, immigration, law and order. Nevertheless, the entire affair speaks volumes. Starmer – our probable next PM – has seriously poor judgement.
Sign up to the Front Page newsletter for free: Your essential guide to the day’s agenda from The Telegraph – direct to your inbox seven days a week.