🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, since when you reach government, it might return to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he stated.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove 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 taking free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been convicted of fraud 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 strong connections 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 underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're changing politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be out. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be terminated," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder round the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" violating 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 determined that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Government Response

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 rental agency that her home was in a specified zone which necessitated a permit. She had quickly rectified the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was determined to get a scalp. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and dismiss her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

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 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 remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would apply on their behalf.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the property holder – instead of 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 comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of rebuilding 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 political consequences return – are evident: people are imperfect.