🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in British politics, often attributed 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.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he stated.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and promised he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated 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 forcefully. Maintaining such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, 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 failure to recognize that accepting free glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have varied in degree of severity. 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 quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the uproar over her strong connections to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

The exit of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she breached 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 special treatment. "People will only believe we're transforming politics when I fire 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 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 hot water, it sent a shared apprehension round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" violating housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed 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.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an justification: she had not been informed by her lettings 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 intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband dug out 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 appears to be in the clear, though there are remaining queries over why her story changed overnight: from her being unaware 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 – rather than 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.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of restoring broken public faith in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are imperfect.