🔗 Share this article

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

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by having a beer and curry at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would quit if found guilty. Fortunately 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 described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, 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 initially compromise his own position, when his failure to recognize 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 found guilty of fraudulent activity over a missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the furore over her strong connections 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 seaside flat was the most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're transforming politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be gone. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be terminated," he told his biographer 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 hot water, it sent a collective shudder round the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

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

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that additional inquiry 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 made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent issued a statement saying it had expressed regret to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, though there are still questions over why her story changed overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

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 rebuilding 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.