🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, since when you reach government, it might return to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by having a beer and curry at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and promised he would resign if found guilty. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.

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," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, particularly in the imperfect realm 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 accepting free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, although they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it was revealed she had been convicted of fraud 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 violated the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust we're transforming politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be gone. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," 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 authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner row, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had already spoken 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 made a mistake, had an justification: she had not been informed by her rental 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 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 broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband located 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, although there are remaining queries over why her account evolved 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 property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable 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 misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

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