There exists a political concept in British politics, frequently credited to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when launching attacks in opposition, since when you achieve power, it could come back to strike you in the face.
During Opposition
As leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal in particular, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a legislator 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 beer and curry at a political gathering, he made a significant political wager and promised he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.
Establishing an Ethical Persona
At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," emphasizing the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.
Reversal of Fortune
Since taking power, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister with a vengeance. Upholding such levels of probity, not just 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 accepting free spectacles, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.
Growing Controversies
Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, although they have differed in seriousness. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been found guilty of fraudulent activity over a lost official mobile in 2014.
Tulip Siddiq quit as a Treasury minister in January after acknowledging 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 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 always been clear there would be no exceptions. "People will only believe we're transforming politics when I fire 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 informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.
Rachel Reeves Situation
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 highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, 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 acknowledged "inadvertently" violating housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.
Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided 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 confident that Reeves, while having made a mistake, had an justification: she had not been informed by her lettings agency that her home was in a specified zone which required a licence. She had promptly corrected 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 stop trying to cover this up, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has broken the law, grow a backbone and sack her," she wrote online.
Proof Surfaces
Fortunately for Reeves, 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 failed to obtain a licence.
The chancellor appears to be in the clear, though there are still questions over why her story changed 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 explicitly specifies it is the owner – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.
Broader Implications
While the misdemeanour is relatively minor when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework highlights the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.
His goal of restoring shattered public trust in the political classes, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.
