Keir Starmer Feels the Effects of Setting Elevated Ethical Benchmarks for His Party in 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 reach government, it could come back to hit you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker 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 beer and curry at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would quit if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was exonerated.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, 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 spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Mounting Scandals

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have differed in seriousness. 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 missing work phone in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being harmed by the uproar over her close ties 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 gravest setback 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 – any minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be out. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

Rachel Reeves Situation

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Furthermore, 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," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her rental agency that her home was in a specified zone which necessitated a permit. 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, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and sack her," she posted.

Evidence Emerges

Fortunately for Reeves, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out their home. Just before they were released, 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 appears to be in the clear, although 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 accountable 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 misdemeanour is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of rebuilding broken public faith in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are imperfect.