🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in UK 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.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout 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 campaign event, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, particularly in the flawed world 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 break what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals 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 emerged she had been found guilty of fraudulent activity over a missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the furore over her strong connections to her aunt, the ousted prime minister 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 most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're transforming 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 doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," he informed his chronicler 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 shared apprehension round the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted 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.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, 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 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 sack her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were published, the agent released a declaration saying it had apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, although there are still questions over why her story changed overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones 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 broken public faith in the political classes, gradually worn down 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.