🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, since when you reach government, it might return to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points 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 legislator and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he stated.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing 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 only 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 inability to see that accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, 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 missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being harmed by the furore over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

The exit of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she violated the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment 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 – any minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be out. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be terminated," 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 authority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking 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, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources 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 required a licence. 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 stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency 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, though there are still questions over why her story changed 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 explicitly specifies it is the owner – 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 numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the boomerang comes back round – are clear: people are imperfect.