🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, because when you reach government, it could come back to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, 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 for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and promised he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. Fortunately 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 characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference 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. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be an impossible task, especially in the flawed world 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 failure to recognize that accepting free glasses, clothes 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 forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been found guilty of fraudulent activity over a missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being damaged by the uproar 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 violated the ministerial code over her insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're changing politics when I dismiss 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 informed his chronicler 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 collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

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

Not only that, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, consulted 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, government insiders were assured that Reeves, while having made a mistake, 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 promptly corrected 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 cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband dug out 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 neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, though there are remaining queries 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.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. 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 misdemeanour is comparatively small when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.