A quiz question: who wrote in April 2022: “Honesty and integrity are important in our politics and for our democracy. Today the Conservatives did he fail to defend one or the other. » ? Yes, you guessed it, this little vignette, happily rubbing salt into Boris Johnson’s gaping wounds, was written by none other than our esteemed Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves.

And who could disagree with her on the importance of honesty and integrity? Of course they are important. Crucial, in fact. But if you want to point your left finger at your opponents, you’d better make sure your own past is free from faults or reproaches.

And that, of course, is impossible. We all, even Reeves, are sinners. None of us, however virtuous we may believe in our politics, can claim to be free from mistakes, deception, or some form of dishonesty at some point in our lives. And these days, it’s all there, somewhere, on the Internet.

This is why it is so dangerous – and even terribly stupid – to weaponize the issue of integrity. Because at some point, your opponents will find out something about you just by asking Mr. Google and his close colleague Mr. Twitter. And then you will not only be accused of lying, as Rachel Reeves is now, but also of the ultimate political sin: blatant hypocrisy. The British people will forgive many, but we are putting an end to the hypocrites.

And let’s be frank about it. No political party in British history and, as far as I know, in world history, has used the issue of “integrity” so ruthlessly as Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves. It was never enough for them to simply disagree with the Conservative government, or to try to explain why Labor might be a better choice. No, instead they chose to extend a kilometer into the countryside, telling the public that the Conservatives were not only wrong, but were particularly dishonest, disreputable and corrupt. Venal, vile and vituperative. I mean, what about that piece of cake Boris ate!

Under normal circumstances, I couldn’t care less if Rachel Reeves edited her resume to make it more impressive, or if she falsely claimed to be a junior chess champion when in reality she wasn’t. not at all, or if she was actually working. in retail banking rather than as an economist as she suggested, or if she claimed credit for something she actually borrowed from Wikipedia.

Yes, she’s accused of all of these things, and they’re all, in their own way, a little reprehensible. But it’s not like she’s drowning puppies in her free time.

Yet when you consider how mercilessly Reeves and Starmer have criticized their political opponents for their own human failings, I have to wonder why we should show Reeves any leniency. Why should we forgive her for natural human failures when she doesn’t do the same for others, and when she goes further and says they are not fit for office?

And why, for that matter, should we believe her when she says she has discovered a £22 billion “black hole” in the public accounts? Why should we pay blind attention to her when she claims to have received the worst economic legacy of any new chancellor since the war? Why, in fact, should we believe that for all her virtue signaling and posturing during her dirty budget speech this month, she is anything other than the kind of politician she accuses Boris Johnson to be?

Once you get a reputation for lying, it’s hard to get over it. But once you’re seen as a hypocrite, it’s impossible. This is the hole Reeves dug for himself.