Starmer Feels the Consequences of Establishing High Standards for His Party in Political Opposition

There is a political concept in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, since when you reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his rule-breaking. "You cannot be a legislator and a lawbreaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, especially in the flawed world 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 accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, though they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it was revealed she had been convicted of fraud over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned 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 accused of corruption.

The exit 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 gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – any 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.

The Reeves Controversy

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in hot water, it sent a shared apprehension through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the entire Starmer project could collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner row, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific £945 licence demanded by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that additional inquiry 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 justification: 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 thought to be behind 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 broken the law, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to rent out 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 neglected to acquire 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 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 been deducted from their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is relatively minor when measured against multiple instances committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of rebuilding shattered public trust in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are imperfect.