🔗 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 achieve power, it could come back to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to resign over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had broken 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 found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was exonerated.

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 difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not just 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 be the first to undermine his own position, when his failure to recognize that taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, 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 uproar 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 breached the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment 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 transforming politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a significant violation 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.

Rachel Reeves Situation

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 collective shudder round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner row, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone which necessitated a permit. She had promptly corrected the error by submitting an application.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out their home. Just before they were released, the agent issued a statement saying it had expressed regret to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, although 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 apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. 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 prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political establishment, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.