🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you achieve power, it might return to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

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 cannot be a legislator 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 curry and beer at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and promised he would resign if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's apparently high 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 only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was always going to be 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 failure to recognize that accepting free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was forced to resign 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 acknowledging the government was being damaged by the uproar over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

The departure 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.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust we're transforming politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be gone. It makes no difference 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, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, 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.

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

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her lettings agency that her home was in a specified zone which required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by submitting an application.

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, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out their home. Just before they were released, the agent released a declaration 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 remaining queries over why her story changed overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would submit the application for them.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when measured against multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of restoring 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 imperfect.