🔗 Share this article

There exists 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 hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded 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 declared.

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

The "Mr Rules" Image

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 seemingly elevated 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 just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, 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 failure to recognize that taking free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence 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 convicted of fraud over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged by the uproar 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 violated the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the most serious blow yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "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 sacked," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had already spoken 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 assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which necessitated a permit. She had quickly rectified the error by submitting an application.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was determined to get a scalp. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband dug out 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 seems to be exonerated, though there are remaining queries 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 explicitly specifies it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Wider Consequences

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

His goal of restoring broken public faith in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are imperfect.