🔗 Share this article

There exists a political concept in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, because when you reach government, it might return to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "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 violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and promised he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be 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 spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have differed in seriousness. 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 lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being harmed by the furore 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 insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're changing politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be gone. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be terminated," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in seniority, could be in hot water, it sent a shared apprehension through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

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

Furthermore, 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," 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 justification: she had not received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which necessitated a permit. She had promptly corrected the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This entire situation smells. 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 dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the rental company 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, 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 submit the application for them.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

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

His ambition of rebuilding broken public faith in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the dangers of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are fallible.