🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in UK 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 hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing 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, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting 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 with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, 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, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

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 was revealed 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 removed leader 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 most serious blow 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 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.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension 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 dispute, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, sought advice from 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.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her lettings agency that her home was in a specified zone which necessitated a permit. She had quickly rectified 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, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out their home. Just before they were published, the agent issued a statement 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, though 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 owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible 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 infraction is relatively minor when compared with multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

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