🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you reach government, it might return to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker 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 political gathering, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. 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 somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, especially in the flawed world of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would initially compromise his own position, when his inability to see that taking free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign 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 accepting the government was being harmed 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 violated the ministerial code over her insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the most serious blow yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "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 terminated," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the required £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 determined that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," within mere 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 received notification by her lettings agency that her home was in a specified zone which required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by submitting an application.

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 broken the law, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the rental company 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 remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would apply on their behalf.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when compared with numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.