🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, because when you achieve power, it might return to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by having a beer and curry at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and promised he would resign if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his entire cabinet, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, particularly in the imperfect realm of politics.

But rarely did anyone anticipate that it would be Starmer himself who would be the first to undermine his own position, when his inability to see that taking free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

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 found guilty of fraudulent activity 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 uproar over her close ties to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

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

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "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 out. It makes no difference who it is, they will be terminated," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

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

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency 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 appears to be in the clear, although 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 apply on their behalf.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the infraction is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

His goal of rebuilding shattered public trust in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.