🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang 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 became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, 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 broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would resign if found guilty. Luckily 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 rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference 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 levels of probity, not just for himself but for his entire cabinet, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, especially in the imperfect realm of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would initially compromise his own position, when his inability to see that taking free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, although they have differed in seriousness. 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 harmed by the uproar over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

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 coastal apartment was the most serious blow yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're transforming politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be gone. 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 emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, 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 seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her lettings 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 determined to get a scalp. "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 sack her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

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 apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they failed to obtain a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, although there are still questions over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would submit the application for them.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law clearly states it is the property holder – rather than 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.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is relatively minor when measured against multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the standards regime highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are fallible.