🔗 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, since when you achieve power, it could come back to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would resign 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 rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, 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 impossible task, especially in the flawed world of politics.

But few foresaw 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.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, although they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been convicted of fraud over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being damaged by the uproar over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

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 gravest setback yet.

No Special Treatment

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 significant violation 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.

The Reeves Controversy

When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder through 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, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence mandated by the local council.

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

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: 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 submitting an application.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "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 wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent released a declaration saying it had expressed regret to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor appears to be in the clear, though there are remaining queries over why her story changed 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 – 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 infraction is comparatively small when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His goal of restoring broken public faith in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of taking the moral high ground – as the boomerang comes back round – are clear: people are imperfect.