It has even been sustained against criticism that he campaigned – twice – to make Jeremy Corbyn prime minister, a man who Starmer has now deemed so toxic that he cannot even be allowed to be a Labour candidate.īut although such behaviour is understood by the electorate, tolerated and even indulged, it all adds up over time. And it is a reputation that has weathered all the U-turns on policy. Starmer’s reputation as a principled, morally-centred leader, one whose impeccable behaviour stands in stark contrast to the despicable, immoral activities of the government, matters to him. Unless, of course, it were to raise further questions. If the whole controversy is, as some Labour briefers claim, a storm in a teacup, nothing more than a distraction from the “real” issues, then revealing the exact date on which discussions began will similarly not matter much. Where is the condemnation from Labour of Gray’s apparent refusal to co-operate with the inquiry into whether she broke the rules by agreeing to take a job with Starmer? It is surely legitimate – indeed necessary – for ministers to want to know precisely when she began employment talks with the Leader of the Opposition, and until clarity is brought to bear on the exact timeline of events, voters will be entitled to form their own conclusions. Instead, the danger for the Labour leader is that an accumulation of events turns into a pattern of behaviour, with the damage to his reputation greater than the sum of the parts. Neither will Starmer’s latest planned U-turn – reneging on his pledge to scrap student fees – derail his campaign to win the next general election.

Although her name was briefly in the headlines during the Partygate inquiry, the controversy over the former senior civil servant’s planned appointment as Keir Starmer’s chief of staff is unlikely to be more than a Westminster bubble story.

Labour will not lose credibility or votes because of the Sue Gray affair.

Machiavillain download