🔗 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.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would resign if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought 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.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, 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 taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, though 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 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 exceptions. "People will truly trust we're transforming politics when I dismiss 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 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 seniority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder round the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner row, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, consulted 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 confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not received notification 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 believed to have originated the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "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, show courage and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, 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 apologised 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 clearly states it is the property holder – 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 been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

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