🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, since when you reach government, it could come back to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a legislator 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 having a beer and curry at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager 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, perhaps not entirely helpfully 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 carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, particularly in the imperfect realm of politics.

But rarely did anyone anticipate 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 break what little belief existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, although they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been convicted of fraud over a missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging 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 seaside flat 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 changing politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be out. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer 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 round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, 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 admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an justification: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which required a licence. She had quickly rectified the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind 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 broken the law, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent released a declaration saying it had apologised 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 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.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when compared with multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the standards regime underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of rebuilding shattered public trust in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are imperfect.