Starmer Experiences the Effects of Setting High Ethical Benchmarks for His Party in Political Opposition

There is 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 might return to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, 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 declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by having a beer and curry at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would quit if found guilty. Luckily 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 characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such levels of probity, not only 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 failure to recognize that taking free glasses, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, though 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 lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit 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 breached 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 always been clear 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 doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer 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 trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, announcing 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.

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," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident 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 required a licence. She had quickly rectified the error by submitting an application.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and sack her," she posted.

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 published, the agent issued a statement 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, 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 submit the application for them.

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 additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the infraction is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of rebuilding broken public faith in the political establishment, gradually worn down 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.