🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, because when you reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker 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 campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and vowed 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 described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, especially in the imperfect realm of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would initially compromise his own position, when his inability to see that accepting free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

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

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged by the uproar over her close ties to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

The exit 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 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be out. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," 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 through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

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.

Not only that, 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 emerging.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources 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 required a licence. She had quickly rectified the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency 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 remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would apply on their behalf.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Wider Consequences

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

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 adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.