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

There is a political concept in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that caution is necessary when throwing a boomerang in opposition, since when you reach government, it might return to strike you in the face.

The Opposition Years

As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at landing blows against the Conservatives. During the Partygate scandal specifically, 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 to pack his bags," he declared.

After Durham police launched an investigation whether he had violated lockdown rules himself by consuming a curry and beer at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would quit if determined to have committed an offense. Fortunately for him, he was cleared.

The "Mr Rules" Image

At the time, perhaps not entirely helpfully for the Labour leader whom the public already perceived was rather rigid, Lisa Nandy described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the contrast between Starmer's seemingly elevated ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.

The Boomerang Returns

Since assuming office, the boomerang appears to have swung back toward the prime minister forcefully. Maintaining such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, 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 break what minimal confidence existed that his government would be distinct.

Growing Controversies

Since then, the scandals have come thick and fast, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was compelled to step down as transport secretary last November after it was revealed she had been convicted of fraud over a lost official mobile in 2014.

Tulip Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after accepting the government was being harmed by the furore 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 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 consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will truly trust we're transforming 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 makes no difference 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, second only to the prime minister in seniority, could be in trouble, 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 apparently learned from the Rayner row, responded firmly, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by leasing her south London home without the specific £945 licence mandated by the local council.

Not only that, the prime minister had already spoken with Reeves, consulted his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," within mere hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.

Government Response

Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured that Reeves, while having committed an error, 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 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 cease attempting to conceal this, commission a complete inquiry and, if Reeves has violated legislation, show courage and dismiss her," she posted.

Proof Surfaces

Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband located emails from the lettings agency 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 neglected to acquire a licence.

The chancellor seems to be exonerated, though there are still questions over why her story changed overnight: from her being unaware 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 property holder – instead of the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for submitting the application. It is also unclear how the couple failed to notice that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.

Wider Consequences

While the infraction is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the ethical framework highlights 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 adopting superior ethical standards – as the boomerang comes back round – are clear: people are imperfect.