Standards in public life. It does not set the heart racing until a scandal breaks, at which point there is talk of little else. So even if the new ministerial code had not dropped on Wednesday, at the same time as the world was digesting news of Donald Trump's victory, it would still likely not have received much fanfare.
But given that today is a little quieter (a pogrom overnight in Amsterdam, the collapse of the German government, the Trump transition, Russian drone barrages on Kyiv, an impending Iranian-backed strike on Israel, continued fighting in Lebanon, Gaza and Sudan) it might be an opportunity to dive into the new ministerial code, and what it means for the government.
Keir Starmer made the idea of restoring service key to his political offer to voters. Indeed, as Leader of the Opposition, he appeared genuinely angry at times by the lapses in probity of the Boris Johnson government. Of course, Starmer's own administration has gotten off to a rocky start, with controversies surrounding the donation of clothes by Lord Alli and tickets to Taylor Swift concerts.
The first thing to note is that it has taken an unusually long time to publish the new ministerial code – 124 days. With thanks to the Institute for Government for collating the data, that compares with 90 days for Tony Blair, 58 days for Rishi Sunak and 10 days for David Cameron. Only Theresa May took longer in recent times. Having said that, Boris Johnson took just 30 days and his government was not exactly an exemplar of standards.
Perhaps the most obvious change is that the prime minister's independent advisor has now been granted the power to initiate their own investigations into possible breaches of the code. Previously, they required permission from the prime minister. This is a significant development although not entirely surprising, given that it was a commitment in Labour's election manifesto.
With regards to gifts and hospitality, the new code does a few things. It strengthens reporting requirements by ministers, while also making clear that it is often important for ministers to meet with relevant stakeholders. Crucially, it notes that whether and how they accept hospitality should be "primarily a matter of judgement for ministers."
Perhaps one under-reported change is to that of special advisors. The new ministerial code removes the limit on the number of SpAds. As the IfG notes, this limit has not been closely observed for some time. And as a general rule, having more SpAds is probably a good thing to provide greater political support.
It might also be a reaction to events at the start of the new government, when Labour faced criticism over some civil servant appointments. And it represents a welcome departure from the stated desire of new prime ministers to cut the number of SpAds in order to 'reduce the cost of government'. It never sticks, money is rarely saved and everyone ends up doing what they want anyway.
Still, we'll have to wait for the first major scandal to see what this "government of service" is made of.
This article appears in our award-winning newsletter, West End Final – delivered 4pm daily – bringing you the very best of the paper, from culture and comment to features and sport. Sign up here.
