🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," he stated.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would resign if found guilty. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described 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 political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was always going to be an impossible task, particularly 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 accepting free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

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 resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged by the uproar over her close ties 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 violated 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 always been clear there would be no special treatment. "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 seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the required £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had already spoken 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 breaking.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone which required a licence. She had quickly rectified the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was determined to get a scalp. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent issued a statement saying it had apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, though there are remaining queries 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 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 overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the infraction is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of rebuilding broken public faith in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.