There exists a political concept in UK politics, often attributed to Tony Blair, that you need to be careful when launching attacks in opposition, because when you reach government, it could come back to strike you in the face.
During Opposition
As opposition leader, Keir Starmer became adept at scoring points against the Conservatives. Throughout the Partygate scandal specifically, he called for Boris Johnson to step down over his violation of regulations. "You should not be a lawmaker and a rule-breaker and it's time for him to go," he declared.
After Durham police launched an investigation 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. Luckily for him, he was exonerated.
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 described him as "Mr Rules," highlighting the difference between Starmer's apparently high ethical standards and Johnson's carelessness.
Reversal of Fortune
Since assuming office, the political attacks have returned toward the prime minister forcefully. Upholding such high standards of integrity, not only for himself but for his entire cabinet, was always going to be an unachievable challenge, especially 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 glasses, clothes and Taylor Swift tickets could break what little belief existed that his government would be different.
Growing Controversies
Since then, the scandals have emerged rapidly, although they have varied in degree of severity. 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 missing work phone in 2014.
Tulip Siddiq resigned 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 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 coastal apartment was the gravest setback yet.
Equal Standards
Yet Starmer has always been clear 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 out. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be sacked," 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 authority, could be in hot water, it sent a collective shudder through the top of government. If the chancellor were to go, the whole Starmer initiative could collapse entirely.
Downing Street, having seemingly gained insight from the Rayner dispute, acted decisively, announcing that the chancellor had acknowledged "inadvertently" breaking housing rules by renting out her south London home without the required £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 determined that additional inquiry into the matter was "not necessary," all within hours of the Daily Mail story emerging.
Government Response
Early on Thursday morning, administration sources were assured 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 required a licence. She had promptly corrected the error by applying for one.
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, show courage and sack her," she wrote online.
Evidence Emerges
Fortunately for Reeves, she had documentation. Her husband dug out emails from the lettings agency they used to rent out their home. Just before they were published, 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 appears to be in the clear, though there are remaining queries over why her account evolved overnight: from her being ignorant that a licence was necessary, to the agency having informed them it would submit the application for them.
Remaining Issues
Also, the law explicitly specifies it is the owner – rather than the lettings agent – that is legally responsible for applying. It is additionally uncertain how the couple overlooked that almost £1000 had not been deducted from their bank account.
Wider Consequences
While the misdemeanour is comparatively small when measured against numerous ones committed during prior Conservative governments, Reeves's brush with the standards regime underlines the challenges of Starmer's position on morality.
His goal of rebuilding broken public faith in the political establishment, eroded over time after years of scandals, may be comprehensible. But the dangers of adopting superior ethical standards – as the political consequences return – are clear: people are imperfect.