🔗 Share this article

There is a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you reach government, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a legislator and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and promised 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 the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, 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 unachievable challenge, particularly 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, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, although they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down 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 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 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will truly trust 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 hot water, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by leasing 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 determined that further investigation 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 received notification by her lettings agency that her home was in a designated area which required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by submitting an application.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was determined to get a scalp. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has broken the law, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out their home. Just before they were published, the agent released a declaration saying it had apologised to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they failed to obtain a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, though there are still questions 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 responsible for submitting the application. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the infraction is relatively minor when measured against numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

His goal of restoring broken public faith 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 clear: people are fallible.