🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you achieve power, it could come back to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police began probing 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 quit 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 rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, especially 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 failure to recognize that taking free glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, although 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 lost official mobile 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 ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

The exit of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she breached the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're transforming politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be gone. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

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 round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the required £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that additional inquiry 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 made a mistake, 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 submitting an application.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated 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 broken the law, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company 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 neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, although there are remaining queries over why her story changed 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 clearly states it is the owner – 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 relatively minor when compared with multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are fallible.