🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, since when you achieve power, it might return to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would quit if found guilty. 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 somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, particularly in the flawed world of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would be the first to undermine his own position, when his inability to see that accepting free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, although they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been convicted of fraud over a missing work phone 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 removed leader of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

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

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust we're transforming politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be gone. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner row, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the required £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed 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.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone 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 determined to get a scalp. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, show courage and dismiss her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency they used to lease their home. Just before they were published, the agent issued a statement saying it had apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

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

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

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