🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, because when you achieve power, it could come back to strike 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 called for Boris Johnson to step down over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a legislator and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.

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," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back 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, especially 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 inability to see that accepting free glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies 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 missing work phone in 2014.

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

The exit 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 coastal apartment was the gravest setback 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 gone. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," 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 seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

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 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," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an justification: 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 believed to have originated the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone 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 lease their home. Just before they were released, 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 appears to be in the clear, though there are still questions over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would submit the application for them.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies 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 infraction is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political establishment, gradually worn down 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.