🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, because when you achieve power, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for 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 having a beer and curry at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting 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 with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be 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 failure to recognize that taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, though they have differed in seriousness. 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 resigned as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging 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 departure of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she violated the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're transforming politics when I fire 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 informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner row, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted 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, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area 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 entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has broken the law, show courage and dismiss her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency they used to lease their home. Just before they were published, the agent issued a statement saying it had expressed regret 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 ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

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

His goal of restoring broken public faith in the political establishment, 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 clear: people are fallible.