View the Keir Starmer ethical assessment profile
This assessment does not reduce the subject to one moral ranking. Each dimension is scored separately from −100 to +100 and must be read with its evidence and uncertainty.
Scorecard status: Recalculated under multidimensional system
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. The assessment covers employment and renters' rights, NHS reform, asylum policy, human-rights obligations, arms-export decisions and the exercise of executive responsibility since July 2024.
The score evaluates documented public conduct during the stated period. It does not measure inherent human worth, does not constitute a legal verdict and remains open to correction when stronger evidence becomes available.
The government has produced material improvements in labour, housing and health policy. The result is reduced by continuing concerns over asylum, detention and human-rights protections. The short period assessed produces a wide uncertainty range.
This assessment presents six separate ethical dimensions rather than one overall moral score. Each result must be read with its evidence, plausible range, confidence, disputes, exclusions, severe-harm findings and sources.
| Domain | Score | Intensity | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consequences | +45.0 | 45.0 | C — moderate |
| Rights and duties | +5.0 | 30.0 | C — moderate |
| Virtue and character | +15.0 | 15.0 | C — moderate |
| Intentions | +25.0 | 25.0 | C — moderate |
| Care | +40.0 | 40.0 | C — moderate |
| Justice | +40.0 | 40.0 | C — moderate |
| Wisdom and judgment | +20.0 | 20.0 | C — moderate |
| Baseline ethics | -10.0 | 10.0 | C — moderate |
| Positive pole | Negative pole | Score | Intensity | Confidence | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human dignity | Dehumanisation | -10.0 | 10.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Human dignity and Dehumanisation. |
| Care | Neglect | +40.0 | 40.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Care and Neglect. |
| Benefit | Harm | +45.0 | 45.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Benefit and Harm. |
| Responsibility | Irresponsibility | +25.0 | 25.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Responsibility and Irresponsibility. |
| Justice | Injustice | +40.0 | 40.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Justice and Injustice. |
| Freedom | Oppression | -25.0 | 25.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Freedom and Oppression. |
| Respect for rights | Violation of rights | +35.0 | 35.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Respect for rights and Violation of rights. |
| Integrity | Corruption | +15.0 | 15.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Integrity and Corruption. |
| Prudence | Recklessness | +20.0 | 20.0 | C — moderate | Calculated from 1 reviewed evidence item(s) concerning Prudence and Recklessness. |
The assessment records major employment-rights legislation, the abolition of no-fault eviction, additional NHS activity and the suspension of arms-export licences where the government identified a clear risk of serious humanitarian-law breaches.
The principal negative evidence concerns unresolved asylum and detention safeguards, proposals to weaken aspects of European human-rights protection and a political approach to migration that may prioritise deterrence over individual dignity.
STA3-C1
Employment protections, renters' rights and additional NHS activity provide material social benefit.
STA3-R1
Legislation strengthened security and enforceable rights for workers and private renters.
STA3-R2
UNHCR identified provisions requiring stronger safeguards for people seeking protection.
STA3-V1
The government suspended licences following an assessment of international-humanitarian-law risk.
STA3-I1
The programme emphasised public services, secure work and legally accountable foreign policy.
STA3-CA1
NHS activity and employment protections were directed toward health, security and family welfare.
STA3-J1
The reforms address unequal bargaining power affecting workers and tenants.
STA3-W1
The government used legislation and administrative reform rather than abrupt constitutional disruption.
STA3-B1
Proposals concerning ECHR and asylum safeguards risk treating individual protection as secondary to deterrence.
Disputed interpretation: The government argues that effective border management and human-rights protection are compatible.
Government sources present the reforms as economically and socially beneficial. Critics dispute their implementation pace and argue that migration policy remains excessively punitive.
Partisan allegations, private conduct and outcomes not yet measurable by June 2026 were excluded.
No corrections have been recorded.