🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in UK politics, frequently credited 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.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he stated.

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

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, 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 inability to see that taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, although they have varied in degree of severity. 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 quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being damaged by the uproar over her strong connections 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 gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a serious breach 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 emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

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

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

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: she had not received notification by her lettings agency that her home was in a specified zone which necessitated a permit. 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 entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out 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, although 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 apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

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

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when measured against multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of rebuilding broken public faith 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 clear: people are fallible.