🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you achieve power, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to resign over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," 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 made a significant political wager and promised he would quit if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was exonerated.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, especially 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 inability to see that accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, although they have differed in seriousness. 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 resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being harmed by the uproar over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now facing corruption allegations.

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 most serious blow yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe 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 out. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension round the top of government. 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 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, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were assured 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 necessitated a permit. 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 stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out 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 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.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. 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 misdemeanour is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of restoring broken public faith in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are imperfect.