At 8.20pm last night I finished a phone call with my parents. I had been sitting in a nice park near my house, and strolled over to the gate. Which was locked - as was every other exit. There is no indication inside or outside the park that it will be locked at such an early hour. Younger people clambered over to freedom, but I currently have a sore shoulder from powerlifting so I couldn't generate the strength to do this.
I tried picking the lock and breaking the chain but nothing was doing. I was therefore reluctantly compelled to phone the fire brigade, who were terrific and initiated a not wholly straightforward process whereby I climbed and balanced using multiple ladders.
I tell this story for two reasons. Firstly, it will give those of you who know me the chance to chuckle at the thought of inelegant massive me perched atop a ladder. And secondly it should say something that despite being incarcerated yesterday, I am still far more angry at the treatment of William Hague, Christopher Myers and their families.
It has come to something when a person resigns having done absolutely nothing wrong. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of demonstrable fact.
William is allowed three Special Advisers (Spads). The Ministerial Code makes it crystal clear that ministers with additional responsibilities may have more than two special advisers. William is First Secretary of State as well as Foreign Secretary. Case closed.
Spads are appointed because the minister trusts them implicitly. Anyone who thinks that the job should be advertised in a broad, competitive process fundamentally misunderstands the role. Spads are there because they have proven loyalty to the minister and to make sure the civil service understands their master's wishes. Policy expertise and lengthy experience may be part of a Spad's arsenal (Hague's other two Spads have it in spades) but it is not a necessary requirement of the job. Spads are there to fix stuff. The civil service provides the expertise and the institutional knowledge.
The very essence of a special adviser means that only one person is fit to choose them: the Minister. It is right that the Prime Minister should sign off on the appointment, but William Hague is the man to decide who would make a good special adviser for William Hague.
You may argue that Spads should not exist. In which case you are very foolish, as elements in the civil service are clearly determined to frustrate the wishes of ministers and they desperately need some ultra-loyal staffers to watch their backs. But Spads do exist, and given the actual nature of their responsibilities there is no reason at all why a bright 25-year-old should not be the best person for the job.
There is not and never has been any evidence whatsoever of an improper relationship between William Hague and Christopher Myers. William has felt compelled to address the matter head-on. Case closed. The massive shame is that Chris Myers found the hideousness unbearable. To anyone who says that this shows a lack of backbone, I suggest you wait until you experience something like this yourself.
There is a qualitative difference between this case and others, and it has nothing to do with party politics. I am all for holding politicians to account. I have tried to do it myself, for both Channel Four News and in my work for the journalist Peter Oborne. And yes, I have helped put the boot into Tories when I felt it was merited.
I am not crying foul because it is a Conservative on the ropes. I am crying foul because it is clear that there has been no impropriety. None at all. Anyone who still thinks there has been either doesn't understand the point of a special adviser or has a very twisted and cynical mind.
When politicians are corrupt, we should and indeed must go for the jugular. When someone is a victim of baseless rumour and innuendo we should defend them to the hilt. The fact that someone can through smearing tactics be made to look bad is no reason to abandon them. William, Ffion and Christopher deserve the strident support not just of Conservatives, but of all decent people.
A final thought: the blogosphere is great; it is anarchic and democratic all at the same time. But if bloggers want to be taken seriously, they should try to exceed the standards of the gutter press, not contrive to fall below them.
