Coulson does a Hague

I have decided to invent a new term.  I’m hoping that it will enter mainstream use, perhaps through the initial medium of word of mouth and then into some internet lexicon of frequently used terms, before becoming as popular as the use of the word ‘gate’ after any political scandal.

The phrase will be ‘to do a Hague’. From now on, this will refer to someone who doesn’t think through their actions, despite having every reason to do so. It could refer also to those caught between twin accusations – perhaps that of someone accused of either abuse of a position of power, or incompetence for not having identified a potential conflict of interest.  Maybe there could be a verb form – ‘You’ve been Hagued’.

After my discussion yesterday of the issues that have affected William Hague and his quite extraordinary statement responding to media whispers about his homosexuality, the foreign secretary must surely be glad that it is someone else’s turn in the spotlight.

It seems as though Number 10 communications chief Andy Coulson, former editor of the News of the World, may be questioned again over his role in a 2007 scandal in which royal editor Clive Goodman was jailed for conspiracy to access phone messages left for royal aides.

Coulson maintains, as he has always done, that he had no knowledge of Goodman’s actions.  Indeed, no evidence has ever suggested differently and he has received the full backing of the office of the Prime Minister.  However, without Cameron’s heavyweight presence at the helm due to his paternity leave, the rumours about Coulson’s role in the matter have persisted like a bad smell, prompting Shadow Education Secretary Ed Balls to state earlier this week that Coulson's role at the heart of Number 10 meant that the government's 'integrity' was under question.

For me, Coulson has done a Hague.  While he may well be correct in his assertion that he did not order or have knowledge of Goodman’s activities, the unfortunate question remains of why he did not know what his own staff were doing.  From the detail in the stories that would surely have resulted from such phone tapping, can Coulson not have wondered about the sources of such information?  Should he not have made more effort to find out?

Days pass, the media focus remains and it seems increasingly likely that Coulson will be questioned by Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner John Yates about his role in the events that took place three years ago.  Despite their vocal public support, senior Conservatives may well be beginning to get twitchy.  The coalition has quietly built up a decent amount of political capital in the first hundred days since its inception, but Cameron has spoken in the past of 'returning integrity' to government, and with each passing day, Coulson is becoming more and more dirty by proximity.  He will fervently hope that he is not the first high-profile figure to be sent to the coalition’s sacrificial altar.

Share your thoughts in the comments.

An Issue Missed

I read a blog earlier today by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in which she slams Westminster gossip bloggers, particularly prominent rumourmonger Guido Fawkes, for their treatment of William Hague.

In her entry, Ms Alibhai-Brown states that the actions of such bloggers 'deny a minister privacy'. Of course, it would be ridiculous to suggest that Mr Hague should be denied a private life, but the office that he holds in public life surely demands better judgement than he has shown this week.

According to Ms Alibhai-Brown, Fawkes 'makes history' by 'disseminating titbits on politicians, most low and distasteful'. Somewhat confusingly, she then proceeds to qualify this statement by listing instances when Whitehall insider information has uncovered matters of genuine public interest, such as Tessa Jowell's husband's fraudulent interaction with Italian premier Silvio Berlusconi. For Fawkes' part, he makes no secret of the fact that his blog is based on rumour and gossip. He even sells branded merchandise.

I cannot claim to have intimate knowledge of Westminster, so I am reliant entirely on information from the papers. However, what is certain is that Christopher Myers, just 25 years old, is now Mr Hague's former adviser, having resigned when the first hint of potential scandal appeared in the mainstream press. Some commentators have suggested that Mr Myers had no specialist knowledge and that he was too young and inexperienced for the role, while others insisted that Mr Hague already had a full complement of experienced advisers and didn't need more. But in the face of what seems a bizarre appointment in the first place, did Mr Hague seriously believe that sharing a room with this young man was not going to result in gossip and newspaper stories? If so, this is astonishing naivety from a man who first stood for parliamentary office nearly twenty-five years ago.

The fact here is that the issue that the media picked up on, namely Mr Hague's suggested homosexuality, is of supreme indifference when compared to his ability to be head of a high office if indeed his judgement is so remiss.

Ms Alibhai-Brown, while acknowledging the positive role that the internet has played in our democracy, goes onto say that it has led to the end of 'decency, fairness, self-restraint' but that these qualities still apply to journalists who work for newspapers. I am sure that Wayne and Coleen Rooney appreciate the 'self-restraint' that the papers showed in their exposé this weekend. Perhaps the best that we can do as individuals is to set an example, both with the maturity of our behaviour and the sensitivity with which we comment on the actions of others.

Share your thoughts in the comments.