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

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a legislator and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," he stated.

After Durham police began probing whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer 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.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

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 lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, particularly in the flawed world of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would be the first to undermine his own position, when his failure to recognize that accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been convicted of fraud over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged by the furore over her close ties to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

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 seaside flat was the gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

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 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.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

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

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed 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 emerging.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident 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 quickly rectified 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 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 sack her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company 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 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 told them it would submit the application for them.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the infraction is relatively minor when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the standards regime 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 understandable. But the dangers of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.