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

There is a political concept in UK politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you achieve power, it could come back 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 rule-breaking. "You cannot be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.

After Durham police began probing whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a campaign event, he took a huge political gamble and promised he would quit if found guilty. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an unachievable challenge, especially 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 glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be distinct.

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 was revealed 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 facing corruption allegations.

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 most serious blow yet.

No Special Treatment

Yet Starmer has always been clear there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – any minister – makes a significant violation 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, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder round the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down.

Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, declaring that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking 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 already spoken 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.

Political Defense

Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were confident 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 necessitated a permit. She had quickly rectified the error by applying for one.

But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are believed to have originated the story, was determined to get a scalp. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone 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 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 neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, though there are still questions over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would apply on their behalf.

Lingering Questions

Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Broader Implications

While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during previous Tory administrations, Reeves's encounter with the standards regime highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.

His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, 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 fallible.