There is a political theory in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.
The Opposition Years
As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "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 broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would quit 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," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.
The Boomerang Returns
Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his whole ministerial team, 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 inability to see that taking free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.
Growing Controversies
Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been convicted of fraud over a missing work phone in 2014.
Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging the government was being harmed by the uproar over her strong connections 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 coastal apartment was the most serious blow yet.
Equal Standards
Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be gone. 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 collective shudder through the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.
Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" violating housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence demanded by the local council.
Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed 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 breaking.
Government Response
Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having made a mistake, 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 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, grow a backbone and sack 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 published, 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 appears to be in the clear, although there are still questions 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.
Lingering Questions
Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible 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 measured against multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.
His ambition of restoring broken public faith in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are imperfect.
