Reva Gudi: When principle meets power we must surely always hold the line?

Dr Reva Gudi is GP and healthcare leader in Hayes, Middlesex, she is also a former Conservative parliamentary candidate, and serves as a local school governor and charity trustee. 

Of late, following on from more scandals, standards rows and ministerial controversy, I asked myself whether the Nolan Principles of public life are still fit for purpose. Perhaps outdated? Too idealistic? Impossible to live up to in modern politics?

And yet, as expected, UK political parties either implicitly or explicitly ask candidates to sign up to the Nolan principles, as the ethical standards of public life.

As a GP working in the NHS, I’m held to the same standards, if not higher.

In 1995, Committee on Standards in Public Life articulated seven principles intended to underpin public office in the United Kingdom: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership.

3 decades on trust in politicians is fragile, arguably, the lowest it’s ever been.

After giving this a great deal of thought, I’ve concluded that the problem is not the principles themselves, but us.

Putting myself forward as a parliamentary candidate at the 2024 General Election, on the doorstep, I noticed something telling. When I introduced myself as a GP, there was an immediate assumption of integrity with trust extended almost instinctively. The title itself carried expectations of candour, duty and care. When I then added that I was a political candidate something shifted. The warmth cooled ever so slightly. The scrutiny sharpened, as I expected, and the exchanges were a touch more sceptical.

Doctors consistently rank among the most trusted professionals in the country. Politicians do not. And yet both are bound, at least in theory, by the same ethical framework: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Not radical aspirations but rather the minimum moral standards of public life.

It then struck me that asking whether we should rethink the Nolan Principles in politics, was asking the wrong question.

The real question, I believe, is whether political culture has drifted so far from ethical expectation that the principles now feel aspirational rather than operational.

Because politics today plays out in a relentless media cycle, where statements make headlines and conspiracy theories do the rounds. Social media rewards outrage more than nuance, with AI backed content that is getting more sophisticated by the minute. Tribal loyalty can crowd out independent judgment. In such an environment, compromise can be seen as betrayal, or dithering, all error is framed as incompetence, (understandably, though), and political disagreement is often conflated with moral failure. Add to this the constant pressure to win, to retain authority, self-preservation, all in an unforgiving electoral cycle.

However, none of the above renders the principles obsolete. If anything, it makes them even more necessary.

The world of medicine, where I have spent most of my working life, offers a useful contrast. In clinical practice, honesty is comparatively straightforward. A test result is abnormal, or it is not. Evidence supports a treatment or it does not. The doctor–patient relationship is built on trust, and candour is expected.

On the other hand, politics is more complex. Policies involve trade-offs. Economic forecasts are uncertain. Negotiations require discretion. Honesty is not optional that can be set aside when circumstances become complicated. It must sit alongside judgment. Knowing when to speak, how much to disclose, and how to protect sensitive negotiations is not the same as misleading. There is of course a need to recognise the clear moral line between careful laying out facts in sequence, and intentional falsehood. Transparency at every moment is not always compatible with effective governance, and every decision made, will usually have winners and losers in the electorate.

Let’s take the two-child benefit cap. It was introduced on the grounds of fiscal restraint and fairness to working taxpayers and criticised for its impact on child poverty. Parties, across the spectrum, take different positions, with differences within the party, and you will see positions evolving when moving from opposition to government, when confronted with economic realities. It is where ideology, competing principles, compassion, redistribution, fiscal sustainability and electoral mandate collide head on. It does illustrate how political decision making rarely involves a single moral axis.

It is within this terrain that ethical standards must operate.

One can argue that the Nolan Principles are unrealistic in the rough-and-tumble of modern political life. I disagree. If anything, those who wield power over millions should be held to higher standards, not lower ones. Decisions about taxation, welfare, defence and public services shape lives at scale. But we must also acknowledge that democracy is inherently adversarial. Cross party consensus, which often exists, stays behind closed doors.

I quickly learnt that expecting politics to feel like a consulting room is naïve. Expecting it to be ethical is not.

To me there exists an uncomfortable truth: Signing up to the Nolan Principles, as a doctor, feels intuitive; as a political candidate, can sometimes feel ceremonial.  Ministers affirm them, Councillors sign codes of conduct. Yet public cynicism persists.

So, what can we do?

If left up to me, I would say instead of strengthening the wording of the principles let’s strengthen the culture and consequences surrounding them. Standards must be reinforced by meaningful accountability, by incentives that reward integrity rather than performative outrage, and by a collective refusal to excuse evasiveness when it suits our side. Ethical public life is sustained by consistent application of the principles, alongside signing a code of conduct.

As citizens we too, have a role. If we demand honesty but reward outrage, if we condemn compromise yet expect delivery, if we treat every unpopular decision as evidence of possible corruption, we contribute to the erosion of trust we claim to lament. Trust is reciprocal and cannot be legislated for.

So, should we rethink the Nolan Principles?

No. We should reclaim them, as they are enduring moral standards.

What has changed is the intensity of scrutiny and the speed of judgment. The answer to that pressure is not to dilute our standards but to live them more deliberately. We know that public life will never be flawless; democracy is too human for that. But abandoning shared ethical commitments because they are difficult would be a far greater failure.  To be honest, the real question is whether we have the steadiness across parties and across society, to uphold them, in an environment that tests them relentlessly.

After all, politicians, and medical professionals alike are capable of integrity and of failure.

The principles endure. The question is whether we do.