🔗 Share this article

There exists a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, because when you reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by having a beer and curry at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would resign if found guilty. Luckily 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," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated 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. Maintaining such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, particularly in the imperfect realm 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 spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, though they have varied in degree of severity. 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 missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged by the uproar over her close ties to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

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 only believe we're transforming 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 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 authority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "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, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: she had not been informed by her lettings agency that her home was in a designated area which required a licence. She had quickly rectified the error by applying for one.

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, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, show courage and dismiss her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, 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 apologised 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 account evolved overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told 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 accountable for applying. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the infraction is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of restoring broken public faith in the political classes, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are imperfect.