🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, because when you reach government, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a legislator and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," he stated.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, especially in the flawed world of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would initially compromise his own position, when his failure to recognize that accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, though they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it was revealed she had been convicted of fraud over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged by the furore over her strong connections to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

The departure of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she breached the ministerial code over her insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're transforming politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be gone. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder round the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" violating housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an justification: she had not received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which required a licence. She had quickly rectified the error by submitting an application.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent issued a statement saying it had apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they failed to obtain a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, though there are still questions over why her story changed overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would submit the application for them.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the standards regime highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of rebuilding shattered public trust in the political classes, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.