🔗 Share this article

There exists a political theory in UK politics, often attributed 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 strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a legislator 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 campaign event, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would resign if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was exonerated.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

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 just 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 inability to see that accepting free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it emerged 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 accepting the government was being damaged by the furore 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 breached the ministerial code over her insufficient payment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're changing 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 makes no difference who it is, they will be terminated," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

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 collective shudder through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

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

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a designated area which necessitated a permit. She had promptly corrected 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, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to lease 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 neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, although there are remaining queries over why her story changed overnight: from her being ignorant 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 owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.