🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you reach government, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a legislator and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he stated.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by having a beer and curry at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and promised he would resign if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference 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. Maintaining 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 be the first to undermine his own position, when his failure to recognize that accepting free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though 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 harmed 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 gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're changing 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 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 through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner row, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, sought advice from 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, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which necessitated a permit. She had promptly corrected the error by submitting an application.

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 broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent released a declaration saying it had apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they failed to obtain a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, although there are remaining queries over why her story changed overnight: from her being ignorant 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 – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines 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 comprehensible. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are fallible.