🔗 Share this article Keir Starmer Feels the Consequences of Establishing Elevated Ethical Benchmarks for Labour in Political Opposition There is a political theory in British politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, since when you achieve power, it could come back to strike you in the face. The Opposition Years As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You cannot be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time to pack his bags," he declared. After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a beer and curry at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and promised he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. 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 somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern. The Boomerang Returns Since taking power, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding 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 initially compromise his own position, when his inability to see that taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different. Mounting Scandals Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it emerged 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 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 exit of Starmer's deputy, Angela Rayner, in September after she breached the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 seaside flat 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 transforming politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be out. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be terminated," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election. Rachel Reeves Situation When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down. Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner row, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking 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," all within 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 excuse: she had not received notification by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone which required a licence. She had quickly rectified 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 stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and dismiss her," she wrote online. Evidence Emerges Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband dug out 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 failed to obtain a licence. The chancellor appears to be in the clear, though there are remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would apply on their behalf. Remaining Issues Also, the law clearly states it is the property holder – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. 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 infraction is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics. His goal of rebuilding broken public faith in the political classes, gradually worn down 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 imperfect.