🔗 Share this article

There exists a political concept in UK politics, often attributed 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.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. Fortunately 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 somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

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 impossible task, 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 shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, though they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it was revealed she had been convicted of fraud over a missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being damaged by the furore over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

The departure 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 coastal apartment was the most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe 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 makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

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

Not only that, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, consulted 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 assured that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone which required a licence. 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 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 dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. 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, although there are remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would apply on their behalf.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law clearly states it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

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