🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you reach government, it might return to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he stated.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry 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, 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 difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, especially in the flawed world 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, clothes 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, although they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it was revealed she had been convicted of fraud over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after accepting 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 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 coastal apartment 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 – 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 told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

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

Furthermore, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided 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 committed an error, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her lettings 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 believed to have originated the story, was determined to get a scalp. "This entire situation smells. 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 dismiss her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out 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, although there are still questions over why her story changed 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 clearly states 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.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when measured against numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of rebuilding 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 evident: people are imperfect.