🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks 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. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and promised he would resign 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 described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, 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 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.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, although they have differed in seriousness. 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 quit as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged by the furore over her close ties to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

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 – whichever 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.

Rachel Reeves Situation

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 highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.

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

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: she had not received notification by her lettings agency that her home was in a designated area 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 intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent released a declaration saying it had expressed regret to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, although there are still questions 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 clearly states it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is comparatively small when compared with multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the standards regime highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of rebuilding broken public faith in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are imperfect.