Lord Acton believes that power corrupts. This two-line quote, the second of which is "absolute power corrupts utterly," is much more well-known than anything else Lord Acton ever said, a century and a half later. Lord Acton was a politician who served as a Liberal MP for nearly a decade. If he'd gotten a little more power, and thus a little more corruption, he could have left a bigger mark.

If power corrupts, as it inevitably does, those who haven't had much power find it much easier to figure it out. This is exactly what the Labour Party is doing now in comparison to the relevant Greensill Capital scandal, doing everything it can to re-ignite the old Tory sleaze tactics that were so lucrative for them when John Major's government deteriorated and eventually ended in the mid-1990s.

Labour's Rachel Reeves led an Opposition Day debate on corruption and influence during Prime Minister's Questions. Its main focus was David Cameron, who, though talking strongly about the damaging effects of advocacy on public life in 2010, hadn't anticipated how soon he'd be looking for a new job.

Ms. Reeves made a valiant effort to create a grand overarching theory of Tory sleaze. From Cameron's discreet text message lobbying of his government colleagues to the lucrative contracts for contributors for PPE that didn't work to the restoration of the Downing Street flat, and so on.

Labour is likely to believe that this strategy would succeed because it did in the 1990s. But there were so many factors at play in John Major's defeat in 1997 that it's almost difficult to isolate and thus correctly assess the value of the numerous sleaze charges, most prominently the Cash for Questions scandal.

There is probably a perception that Conservatives are just worse at this than anyone else. But, if power taints, they've got a lot more than the others. Labour was out of power for almost 20 years by 1997. Anyone would feel good after spending so long outside in the cold.

Now, things are a bit different. It could find it more difficult to glide the stench of corruption over to the Tories' side. If a significant number of voters are turned off by such conduct, they will be doomed to a life of failure. There aren't a lot of decent choices. If Tony Blair was carried into 10 Downing Street by a hint of sleaze, it's not entirely fair to say it was awaiting him. Many times over the last few days, it's been said that he was simply more cunning than Cameron. He greased wheels that were a long way from home. Also, there weren't many people in Gordon Brown's government in 2007 who might have helped him out.

In the coming weeks, Labour may have had some progress rebranding the Conservatives as the party of corruption. But it's difficult not to get the feeling that a tired voter has come to expect it from all of them, and not without reason. To be more specific, Jeremy Corbyn had a lot of flaws, but a weakness for personal gain was not among them. It's fair to say that former Prime Minister Corbyn would have been a poor choice for corporate influence, and not only because he can't tell the difference between a loan shark and a hedge fund.

When Johnson leaves office, the worst is not only anticipated but also probably expected of him. Keir Starmer and his colleagues may want to think about how little this reality worried voters.