🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded 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 stated.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken 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 found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting 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. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, 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 initially compromise his own position, when his inability to see that accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies 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 was revealed 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 harmed by the uproar over her close ties to her aunt, the ousted prime minister of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

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 seaside flat was the most serious blow yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I fire 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.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in hot water, it sent a shared apprehension round the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner row, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

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

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an justification: she had not received notification by her lettings agency that her home was in a specified zone which necessitated a permit. She had quickly rectified the error by submitting an application.

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, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage 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 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 remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being unaware 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 responsible for applying. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the infraction is comparatively small when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are fallible.