🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you achieve power, it could come back to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, 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 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 beer and curry at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, particularly in the flawed world of politics.

But rarely did anyone anticipate 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 shatter what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

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 found guilty of fraudulent activity over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being damaged by the uproar 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 insufficient payment 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 exceptions. "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 sacked," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to 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 depart, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

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

Not only that, 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.

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 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 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 violated legislation, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out their home. Just before they were released, 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, 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 property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from 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 highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

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.