Starmer Feels the Effects of Setting Elevated Ethical Benchmarks for His Party in Political Opposition

There is a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, because when you achieve power, it might return to strike you in the face.

During Opposition

As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to resign over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker 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 beer and curry at a political gathering, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Luckily for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

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," emphasizing the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

Reversal of Fortune

Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Maintaining such levels of probity, not just for himself but for his whole ministerial team, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, particularly 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 failure to recognize that taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be different.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, although they have differed in seriousness. 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 quit as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being damaged 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 violated the ministerial code over her underpayment of stamp duty on her £800,000 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.

Equal Standards

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're changing politics when I fire someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a significant violation of the rules, they will be gone. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be terminated," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election.

The Reeves Controversy

When it emerged on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in seniority, 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 collapse entirely.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner row, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted 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.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders 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 designated area 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 intent on securing a resignation. "This whole thing stinks. The prime minister needs to stop trying to cover this up, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had receipts. Her husband located emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were published, the agent issued a statement saying it had expressed regret to the couple for an "oversight" that meant they neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, though there are remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being unaware that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would submit the application for them.

Remaining Issues

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for submitting the application. 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 misdemeanour is relatively minor when compared with numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's brush with the standards regime underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

His ambition of restoring broken public faith in the political establishment, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the boomerang comes back round – are evident: people are fallible.