🔗 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, since when you reach government, it could come back to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would quit if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding 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 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 inability to see that taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, although they have varied in degree of severity. 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 acknowledging the government was being harmed by the furore over her strong connections to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

The departure 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.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I fire 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 sacked," 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 authority, could be in hot water, it sent a shared apprehension round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence demanded 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," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an justification: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone which required a licence. 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 entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

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

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, 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 submit the application for them.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are clear: people are imperfect.