Monday
A few loose ends I’m still trying to get to the bottom of:
1) If Damian was running the mole — and there’s no evidence to suggest he was but let’s just say he might have been — then who was running Damian? Wonky Tom says it’s Mrs Damian, the nice lawyer lady. Possible the whole idea was Damian’s I suppose, but seems v unlikely.
2) Was I involved in the leaks and if I was, have I done anything wrong? This is tricky. Been racking brains and do remember Mr G once asking me to pass someone something in a brown envelope. But I didn’t look inside so I can’t be involved, can I? Ethically speaking, this can be no different than all the other stuff I’d no idea I’d done until someone told me later, can it?
3) What’s the difference between a mole and a whistleblower? Do whistleblowers blow the whistle on moles, or vice versa? (Obviously moles can’t actually blow whistles.)
4) Why is the sergeant-at-arms calling himself Ms all of a sudden? Is there perhaps a bigger story here that we have all been overlooking?!
Tuesday
Some more questions: why is Harriet Harperson on our side? And who leaked her views on the leaks? Was it a whistleblower? Or a mole? Was it our mole? If it was, is this kind of leaking legal? If Labour leaked it, surely we must leak this as a matter of urgency!?
One thing’s for sure, could have done without a U-turn on spending cuts this week. Didn’t find out until Gary caught me on the phone to a journalist briefing that we were going to have a bonfire of the quangocracies. Got a terrible dressing down.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in