Rachel Reeves accepted Sabrina Carpenter tickets, worth around £600, citing security concerns. Now, it’s plausible she could’ve purchased her own, but imagine her in a mosh pit with approval ratings of 58% disapproving, and only 17% in support. I still think she’d be relatively safe. Personally, I’m not a fan of how Reeves has handled her role in the exchequer. Her defeatist attitude and vague promises for growth don’t sit well with me. However, I wouldn’t disrupt a pop concert by confronting her, and I’m sure most Carpenter fans would agree. I wouldn’t even approach her at a politically charged event, like a Billy Bragg performance.
Heidi Alexander tried to support Reeves in a Times Radio interview, but it backfired halfway through. “I actually sadly haven’t been to see any concerts at all over the last nine months,” admitted the transport secretary, “partly because I’ve been very, very busy.”
There are two criticisms directed at the chancellor here. Firstly, she shouldn’t have taken the tickets; secondly, accepting them implies she wasn’t busy enough. On this latter point, I’ll offer a mild defense. The right level of busyness for a chancellor is tricky; trying to look industrious could seem like mere posturing, while staying low-key doesn’t inspire confidence. Truth be told, the best approach might be not being chancellor at all. But if being the chancellor is unavoidable, perhaps it’s best never to appear as if you’re enjoying it too much—no buzzing concerts or even local pub cover bands.
Adding a third count against her: this blunder wasn’t necessary. Last year’s chaos with Keir and the Taylor Swift tickets—which he later reimbursed—the designer glasses incident, and Reeves accepting a wardrobe donation from Juliet Rosenfeld all sparked endless discussions about whether the new administration was distinct from the previous one. By now, it should be clear that politicians ought to steer clear of freebies until public memory fades regarding profligate politicians. Who knows how long this will take? I feel I’ll remember Boris Johnson’s wallpaper well into my twilight years.
All of this stems from “optics,” which should be obvious to today’s political figures. They’re trained to consider “how will this look?” before pondering “is this important?” Another tricky area is the “vibe.” there’s a reason why when Tony Blair invited Noel Gallagher to Downing Street, it resonated as winds of change rather than trivial distractions from critical measures like minimum wage legislation. When optimism is in the air and prosperity is perceived—whether rightly or through debt-driven illusions—leaders arguably have a duty to reflect that through their enjoyment.
Compare this to the reaction George Osborne received at the London Paralympics in 2012. The crowd booed him because austerity had already impacted disabled people significantly. Seeing him enjoy the Paralympians’ success was too jarring for spectators. Plus, there’s the sentiment that a chancellor, particularly, can’t discuss tough decisions at work and then enjoy the weekend in leisurewear. Visible enjoyment is off-limits until tough times have subsided. So, even if Reeves had bought the tickets, attending a Carpenter concert would likely still attract criticism, though perhaps less expressively.
In essence, it’s wise to avoid high-profile enjoyment until the broader public feels those good times have returned.
Zoe Williams writes for The Guardian.
Have thoughts on the issues raised here? If you’d like to share a response of up to 300 words, please email us for potential inclusion in our letters section.
