🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, since when you achieve power, it could come back to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he stated.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would quit if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was exonerated.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, especially 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 taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

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 emerged she had been convicted of fraud over a missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being harmed by the furore 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 breached the ministerial code over her insufficient payment 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 out. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension round the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, 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 admitted to "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were assured that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her lettings agency that her home was in a specified zone which necessitated a permit. She had promptly corrected 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 entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has broken the law, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to lease their home. Just before they were published, the agent released a declaration 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, although there are still questions 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.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, 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.