🔗 Share this article

There exists a political concept in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you achieve power, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

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

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily 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 apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be an impossible task, particularly in the imperfect realm 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 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 scandals have come thick and fast, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been convicted of fraud over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the uproar over her close ties to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

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.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear 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 gone. It doesn't matter 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, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out 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 additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone which required a licence. 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 whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. 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 expressed regret 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 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 property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

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

His goal of restoring broken public faith in the political classes, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are imperfect.