🔗 Share this article

There is a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his violation of regulations. "You cannot 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 having a beer and curry at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, 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 assuming office, 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 unachievable challenge, especially in the flawed world of politics.

But few foresaw that it would be Starmer himself who would be the first to undermine his own position, when his inability to see that taking free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, although 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 missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the furore over her strong connections 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 violated the ministerial code over her insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're changing politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be out. 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, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in hot water, it sent a shared apprehension 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 dispute, responded firmly, announcing 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 previously conversed with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her lettings 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 believed to have originated 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 dismiss her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to rent out their home. Just before they were published, 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 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 explicitly specifies it is the property holder – rather than 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.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is relatively minor when measured against multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, 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 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 evident: people are fallible.