🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you achieve power, it could come back to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

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 violation of regulations. "You should not be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, particularly in the imperfect realm of politics.

But rarely did anyone anticipate that it would be Starmer himself who would initially compromise his own position, when his failure to recognize that accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, though they have differed in seriousness. 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 furore over her strong connections 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 dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be out. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

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 entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the required £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: she had not been informed by her rental 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 determined to get a scalp. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has broken the law, show courage and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to rent out their home. Just before they were published, 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 appears to be in the clear, though there are remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being unaware 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 owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring 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 boomerang comes back round – are clear: people are fallible.