🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, since when you achieve power, it might return 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 in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he stated.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would quit if found guilty. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.

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 taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, particularly in the imperfect realm of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would be the first to undermine his own position, when his failure to recognize that accepting free glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it was revealed she had been found guilty of fraudulent activity over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit 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 breached the ministerial code over her insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust we're changing 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.

The Reeves Controversy

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in seniority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £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 additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

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 specified zone which required a licence. 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, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and sack her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent issued a statement saying it had apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they failed to obtain a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, although there are remaining queries 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 – instead of 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 infraction is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.

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