🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you achieve power, it could come back to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had broken 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.

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 difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, particularly in the imperfect realm of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would be the first to undermine his own position, when his failure to recognize that accepting free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, though 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 lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit 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 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 most serious blow yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "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 makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," 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 seniority, 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, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £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 additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," within mere 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 excuse: she had not received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which necessitated a permit. She had quickly rectified the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was determined to get a scalp. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were published, the agent released a declaration saying it had apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they failed to obtain a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, although there are remaining queries 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 property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Wider Consequences

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

His goal of rebuilding shattered public trust in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.