🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you reach government, it might return to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, especially in the imperfect realm 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 glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign 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 acknowledging the government was being harmed by the furore over her close ties to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

The departure of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she violated the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're changing politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be out. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner row, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the required £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her lettings 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 believed to have originated the story, was determined to get a scalp. "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 posted.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent released a declaration saying it had expressed regret to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

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

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is relatively minor when measured against multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of rebuilding broken public faith in the political establishment, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.