🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, since 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 resign over his violation of regulations. "You cannot 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 broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would quit if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was exonerated.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting 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 high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, particularly in the imperfect realm of politics.

But rarely did anyone anticipate that it would be Starmer himself who would be the first to undermine his own position, when his inability to see that accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it was revealed 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 uproar over her close ties to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

The departure of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she violated the ministerial code over her insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

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

The Reeves Controversy

When it emerged 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 go, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner row, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out 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 determined that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Political Defense

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 specified zone which required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by applying for one.

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 cease attempting to conceal this, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to lease their home. Just before they were published, the agent released a declaration 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 unaware 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 property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is relatively minor when measured against multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, gradually worn down 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 imperfect.