Keir Starmer Experiences the Effects of Setting Elevated Ethical Benchmarks for Labour in Political Opposition
There exists 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 reach government, it could come back to strike you in the face.
During Opposition
As opposition leader, Keir Starmer mastered scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he demanded Boris Johnson to step down over his rule-breaking. "You should not be a lawmaker and a lawbreaker and it's time to pack his bags," he stated.
After Durham police began probing whether he had broken lockdown rules himself by having a curry and beer at a campaign event, he made a significant political wager and vowed he would resign 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 somewhat uptight, Lisa Nandy characterized him as "Mr Rules," highlighting 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 only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was inevitably would prove an impossible task, particularly in the flawed world 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 inability to see that taking free spectacles, clothing and Taylor Swift tickets could shatter what little belief existed that his government would be different.
Mounting Scandals
Since then, the controversies have come thick and fast, though they have varied in degree of severity. Louise Haigh was forced to resign as transport secretary last November after it emerged she had been found guilty of fraudulent activity 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 furore 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 underpayment of stamp duty on her ÂŁ800,000 coastal apartment was the most serious blow yet.
Equal Standards
Yet Starmer has consistently maintained there would be no special treatment. "People will only believe 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 out. It makes no difference who it is, they will be sacked," he informed his chronicler Tom Baldwin before the election.
Rachel Reeves Situation
When it was revealed on Wednesday that Rachel Reeves, ranking immediately below the prime minister in authority, could be in hot water, it sent a shared apprehension round the highest levels of administration. If the chancellor were to go, the entire Starmer project could come tumbling down.
Downing Street, having apparently learned from the Rayner row, responded firmly, declaring that the chancellor had admitted to "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the specific ÂŁ945 licence mandated by the local council.
Furthermore, the prime minister had previously conversed with Reeves, sought advice from his ethics adviser, Laurie Magnus, and decided that further investigation into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.
Political Defense
Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured 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 designated area which required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by submitting an application.
But Kemi Badenoch, whose Tory researchers are thought to be behind the story, was determined to get a scalp. "This entire situation smells. The prime minister needs to cease attempting to conceal this, order a full investigation and, if Reeves has violated legislation, grow a backbone and dismiss her," she wrote online.
Proof Surfaces
Luckily for the chancellor, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the rental company they used to rent out their home. Just before they were published, the agent released a declaration 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 informed 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 submitting the application. It is also unclear how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not left their bank account.
Wider Consequences
While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against multiple instances committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's encounter with the ethical framework highlights the difficulties of Starmer's position on morality.
His goal of rebuilding shattered public trust in the political establishment, gradually worn down after years of scandals, may be understandable. But the pitfalls of taking the moral high ground – as the political consequences return – are evident: people are fallible.
