There is a peculiar affliction stalking modern progressive politics. It is not ideological fervour, nor moral vanity, though there is plenty of both. It is something far more puzzling, an almost operatic collapse of judgment among people who pride themselves on being the adults in the room.
Now don’t get me wrong. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Even the loveliest and wisest people on the planet are occasionally taken in by rogues. History is littered with charming villains and plausible frauds. One can forgive the odd misstep, the misplaced trust, the handshake that ages badly.
But what we are witnessing today is not a case of unforeseeable betrayal. It is a pattern. And with many of these characters, the writing was not merely on the wall, it was spray painted in six foot letters.
Take yesterday’s revelations concerning Rachel Reeves. Robert Jenrick has accused the Chancellor of “appalling judgment” over her alleged closeness to Arshad Khatana, vice chairman of the Leeds Council of Mosques, who has now reportedly been suspended by Labour pending investigation into claims about extreme views. Jenrick shows Reeves was photographed with him dozens of times over more than a decade and even described him as a close friend.
Of course Reeves says she was not aware of the allegations. That may well be so. But here lies the question that refuses to go away, how does one rise to the highest offices of state while apparently failing to conduct even the most cursory due diligence on those one publicly embraces? His views seemed to be readily available online.
And this is not an isolated tremor. It is part of a broader seismic pattern.
Keir Starmer’s decision to elevate Lord Mandelson, a figure whose political career has been repeatedly shadowed by controversy, was met with raised eyebrows not merely from his opponents but from within his own camp. Starmer was warned. The concerns were not whispered in obscure corners of the internet, they were widely aired. They were front page news. Yet the appointment went ahead, as though reputational gravity simply did not apply.
Time and again, senior Labour figures seem startled to discover uncomfortable histories attached to the people they promote, defend, or befriend. The public, meanwhile, scrolls back through years of photos, speeches and associations and wonders, are we really to believe no one noticed?
This would be merely ironic were it not for the Left’s own long standing doctrine of guilt by association.
For years, they have perfected the art of forensic photography. A handshake here. A conference panel there. A fleeting shared platform with someone who later falls from grace, and suddenly it is treated as a moral contagion. “How could you not have known?” they demand.
And when the lens swivels, the tone changes. Suddenly we are told it is unfair to conflate proximity with endorsement. That friendship does not equal agreement. That awareness cannot be assumed.
All perfectly reasonable defences, ones conservatives have been pleading for years.
But they cannot have it both ways.
If a backbench MP once photographed at a fundraiser with a future wrongdoer is morally culpable, then surely a Chancellor repeatedly photographed, socially acquainted and politically aligned with a controversial figure invites at least legitimate questions about judgment.
And let us stress, this is not about secret dossiers unearthed from dusty vaults. Many of the concerns now cited were matters of public record. This is not clairvoyance, it is Google.
What explains this recurring phenomenon?
Perhaps it is the comforting insulation of political tribes. If someone is “on our side,” warning lights flicker less urgently. Perhaps it is the moral self confidence that comes from believing oneself permanently on the right side of history. If you are convinced your cause is virtuous, you may assume those orbiting it must be broadly so as well.
Or perhaps, and this is the more troubling possibility, reputational risk is calculated differently. That certain alliances are considered electorally useful until they become inconvenient. And when inconvenience arrives, the memory resets.
Of course, none of this means Reeves shares any alleged extreme views. None of it proves knowledge or intent. But it does seem more than a tad hypocritical.
Politics is ultimately a judgment test. Not an exam in hindsight, but in foresight. Not whether one can denounce wrongdoing after the headlines break, but whether one can sense, from the available evidence, that something is amiss before it explodes especially if it’s already in the public domain.
If the Left wishes to continue prosecuting others for historical associations, it must first explain its own recurring amnesia. If guilt by association is to remain the coin of the realm, it cannot be legal tender only when it suits.
Otherwise, the public may conclude something far more damaging than hypocrisy.
They may conclude that the party which so loudly claims the moral high ground cannot even see the ground beneath its own feet.
