🔗 Share this article

There exists a political concept in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you achieve power, it could come back to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows 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 lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he stated.

After Durham police began probing whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would quit if found guilty. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing 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. Maintaining such levels of probity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, particularly in the flawed world 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 taking free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals 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 damaged by the furore over her close ties to her aunt, the ousted prime minister 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 most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be gone. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had already spoken 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 emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: she had not been informed by her rental 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 intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and dismiss her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency 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 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 apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the standards regime highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of rebuilding broken public faith in the political classes, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the dangers of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are clear: people are fallible.