🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang 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 mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You cannot 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 beer and curry at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. 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 somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, especially in the imperfect realm of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would initially compromise his own position, when his failure to recognize that taking free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, though they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was forced to resign 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 quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the furore over her close ties to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

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 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 doesn't matter who it is, they will be terminated," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in hot water, it sent a shared apprehension through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded 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.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an justification: she had not been informed by her lettings 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 believed to have originated the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to rent out their home. Just before they were released, the agent released a declaration saying it had expressed regret to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, though there are still questions 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 explicitly specifies it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when compared with multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of rebuilding broken public faith in the political establishment, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.