🔗 Share this article Keir Starmer Feels the Effects of Setting High Ethical Benchmarks for Labour in Opposition There exists a political theory in British politics, often attributed 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 hit you in the face. During Opposition As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he called for Boris Johnson to step down 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 began probing whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a political gathering, 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, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom voters already thought was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's lack of concern. Reversal of Fortune 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 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 initially compromise his own position, when his inability to see that accepting free glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be different. Mounting Scandals Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, 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 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 ousted prime minister 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. Equal Standards Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're changing politics when I dismiss someone on the spot. If a minister – whichever minister – makes a serious breach of the rules, they will be out. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," he told his biographer Tom Baldwin before the election. Rachel Reeves Situation When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, it sent a shared apprehension through the top of government. If the chancellor were to depart, the whole Starmer initiative could come tumbling down. Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had admitted to "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," all within hours of the Daily Mail story breaking. Government Response Early on Thursday morning, government insiders were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, had an justification: 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 thought to be behind the story, was intent on securing a resignation. "This entire situation smells. 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 Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to lease their home. Just before they were released, the agent issued a statement saying it had expressed regret 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 story changed overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having told them it would submit the application for them. Lingering Questions Also, the law clearly states it is the property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally accountable for applying. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice 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 ethics. His ambition of restoring broken public faith in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are imperfect.