Unedifying

There's an irony in commenting on things that you disapprove of being commented on, so I will restrain myself on Hague save to say the whole thing is a little unedifying. There may be something to this; there may not, but the crass crowing of Guido over the success of his campaign is unpleasant, though I do owe it to him for this faintly absurd comment from the Mirror which seems to argue that if only we had Palmerston in power, all would be better - not something I ever imagined them saying.

They are of course right, though for the wrong reasons. It would be better if we conducted our institutions along the lines of what they imagine the nineteenth century to be, without a spiteful, envious electorate seizing eagerly on any real or imagined hint of unorthodoxy or irregularity in their affairs. And instead let what are undoubtedly able men get on with running the offices of state (and lambast them when they fail), rather than this gossip laden and ugly interlude before real politics starts again. Even if there is a little dodge on public money, it doesn't matter; there are more important things at stake.

Not that this is new. I'm reading this account of the career of Athanasius, the fourth century bishop of Alexandria, and the travails attending his somewhat chequered career. His opponents couldn't distinguish the important from the unimportant either.

Just as he did, I hope Hague has no hesitation in using the anathema, though I fear it may have the same mixed effect: Athanasius spent much of his episcopate in exile.