🔗 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, since when you reach government, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

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

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and promised he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, 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 with a vengeance. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, particularly in the imperfect realm of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would be the first to undermine his own position, when his inability to see that taking free spectacles, 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 compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it was revealed 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 acknowledging the government was being harmed 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 coastal apartment was the most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "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 doesn't matter who it is, they will be terminated," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Furthermore, 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," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, 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 applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, 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 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 told them it would submit the application for them.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – 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 left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when compared with numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.