🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, because when you achieve power, it might return to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a legislator and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

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

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding 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 inability to see that accepting free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, though they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down 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 accepting the government was being damaged by the furore over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

The exit of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she breached the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust 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 gone. It makes no difference 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, 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 depart, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner row, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the required £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed 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, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her lettings agency that her home was in a designated area which required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent issued a statement 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, though there are still questions over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would submit the application for them.

Remaining Issues

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 failed to notice that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the dangers of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are clear: people are fallible.