Starmer Experiences the Effects of Setting Elevated Standards for Labour in Political Opposition

There is a political concept in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you achieve power, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and vowed he would resign if found guilty. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

Establishing an Ethical Persona

At the time, possibly not completely advantageous for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such levels of probity, 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 initially compromise his own position, when his failure to recognize that accepting free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have emerged rapidly, although they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign 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 accepting the government was being damaged by the uproar over her strong connections to her aunt, the removed leader of Bangladesh now accused of corruption.

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 seaside flat 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 transforming politics when I dismiss 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 terminated," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, second only to the prime minister in authority, could be in trouble, it sent a collective shudder round the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

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

Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and determined that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story breaking.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were confident that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an excuse: she had not been informed by her lettings agency that her home was in a specified zone which necessitated a permit. 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 whole thing stinks. 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 wrote online.

Evidence Emerges

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 released, the agent released a declaration 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 remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law clearly states it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible 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 misdemeanour is comparatively small when compared with multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework underlines the difficulties of Starmer's position on ethics.

His ambition of restoring broken public faith in the political establishment, eroded over time 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.