Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
Teahe chancellor Rachel ReevesHis defense for breaking the law is that he did so “Unintentional mistake”He didn’t know, he told sir keir starmerthat she was want to buy a license When he and his family moved to Downing Street he had to rent out his house in South London.
Except the next day, it emerged that her husband, who had made the deal with the rental agent, had been told about the license requirement. Not only did he have broken the lawBut he had misled the Prime Minister about this. Of course, “inadvertently”.
It does not say anything complimentary about the Chancellor of the Exchequer except that she failed to pay adequate attention to the details of her own financial affairs. She should have checked that her legal obligations to her husband were fulfilled rather than relying on the letting agent’s assurances.
And he should have fully established the facts before reassuring Sir Keir on Thursday that, in fact, “there is nothing to see here”.
Equally, the Prime Minister was at fault for accepting the initial details of the inspection so quickly, and for failing to insist that Sir Laurie Magnus, the adviser on ministerial interests, spend more than a few minutes investigating what had happened.
Sir Keir gave the impression that he was eager to make a statement exonerating his chancellor because he could not afford to lose him – in a way he was not so keen to do angela rainerHis troublesome former deputy.
The bottom line in Ms Reeves’ case is that, although it took a further 24 hours to establish all the relevant facts, she fell short of the high standard of propriety that could have been expected of her. She may claim in mitigation that the letting agent undertook to obtain a license but failed to do so. But ultimately, as per the law, she and her husband were responsible for its compliance.
The Prime Minister – with Sir Laurie’s secret letter – has taken the condescending view that Ms Reeves was unknowingly law-breaking It is not a matter of resignation,
However, Ms Reeves and Sir Keir do not see it that way, when similar mistakes have been made by other politicians. Not just Ms Rayner, whose resignation was accepted by Sir Keir after she inadvertently made a mistake underpayment of stamp duty On the purchase of a property, for which he apologized and promised to fix. If Sir Lowry found Ms Rayner had breached the ministerial code, it is surprising what he did No such finding was made in Ms. Reeves’ case,
But also, while in opposition, both Ms Reeves and Sir Keir called for the resignations of Rishi Sunak and Boris Johnson over their “inadvertent mistake” of attending a work meeting during the coronavirus lockdown, which included a short break to celebrate the Prime Minister’s birthday.
Sir Keir adopted a solemn moral tone, promising that his government would adhere to higher ethical standards than the outgoing administration, and yet within days of taking office, he and several of his senior ministers, including Ms Reeves, found themselves in trouble. stuck in the dirt,
He and his chancellor accepted gifts of clothes and concert tickets – in fact, he admitted that he should not have done so when he announced that he would not accept such donations in the future.
There is a lesson here not only for the ministers but also for the opposition parties. Kemi BadenochThe Conservative leader has unwisely called for Ms Reeves’s resignation, perhaps forgetting that she herself broke the law – and knowingly, not unknowingly – when, as a Tory activist in her twenties, she Harriet Harman’s website hacked,
Ms Badenoch perhaps should have taken a different stance and suggested that rental laws are so complex that there is no single Labor The Chancellor can understand them.
All politicians would be better off putting less effort into demanding that their opponents resign or making promises of sacrosanct ethical standards, and more into doubly ensuring that they always follow the strict letter of the law of the land.