🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you achieve power, it might return to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

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

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and promised he would resign if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was exonerated.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be an impossible task, especially in the imperfect realm of politics.

But few foresaw 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.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, 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 lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit 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 underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust we're transforming politics when I fire 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 sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project 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 specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," within mere 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 received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone 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 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 broken the law, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to rent out their home. Just before they were released, 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, although there are remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when compared with multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

His goal of restoring broken public faith in the political establishment, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are imperfect.