🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you achieve power, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a legislator and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," he stated.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager 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 the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, 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 inability to see that accepting free glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, 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 quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the furore 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 underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust 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 out. It makes no difference who it is, they will be terminated," he told his biographer 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 hot water, 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 row, acted decisively, declaring 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.

Not only that, 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," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which necessitated a permit. She had promptly corrected 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 cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out their home. Just before they were released, the agent issued a statement saying it had expressed regret to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, 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 apply on their behalf.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. 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 comparatively small when measured against multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

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