🔗 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 reach government, it could come back to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a lawmaker 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 political gathering, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would resign if found guilty. Luckily 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 described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his entire cabinet, was always going to be 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 accepting free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, although 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 missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged by the furore over her close ties to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

The departure 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 most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're changing 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 sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

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 highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, 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 previously conversed with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: she had not been informed by her lettings 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 thought to be behind the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to rent out 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 neglected to acquire a licence.

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

Lingering Questions

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

Broader Implications

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

His ambition of restoring broken public faith in the political classes, 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.