🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for 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 launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would resign 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 rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated 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 forcefully. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, particularly 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 accepting free glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break 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 compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it emerged 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 acknowledging the government was being harmed by the uproar over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

The departure of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she violated the ministerial code over her insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're transforming politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach 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.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in hot water, it sent a shared apprehension round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

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

Furthermore, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders 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 designated area which required a licence. She had promptly corrected 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 cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency 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 seems to be exonerated, although there are still questions over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would submit the application for them.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when measured against numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the standards regime underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of rebuilding broken public faith 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 boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.