🔗 Share this article

There exists a political concept in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, because when you reach government, it might return to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

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

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

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 just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, particularly in the flawed world 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 failure to recognize that taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, although they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was forced to resign 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 resigned as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the furore 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 breached 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 always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust we're transforming politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be gone. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder round the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner row, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "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, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her lettings agency that her home was in a designated area which necessitated a permit. She had promptly corrected the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. 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.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband located 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 seems to be exonerated, though there are still questions over why her account evolved overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the infraction is comparatively small when compared with multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

His goal of rebuilding shattered public trust in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.