🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British 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.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a campaign event, 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 somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back 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 flawed world of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would initially compromise his own position, when his failure to recognize that accepting free glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence 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 missing work phone 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 ousted prime minister 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 most serious blow yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust 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 gone. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder round the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner row, responded firmly, announcing 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.

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not received notification 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 dismiss her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to lease 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 failed to obtain a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, although there are still questions over why her story changed overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would submit the application for them.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is relatively minor when measured against multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the standards regime highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of rebuilding shattered public trust in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.