• Lord Wolfson the Younger (both father and son are life peers) is public-spiritedly offering £250,000 for anyone who, in 25,000 words, can answer the question ‘If it becomes necessary for one or more member states to leave the euro, what is the best way for this to be arranged?’ At dinner with Simon Wolfson on the same night as the cheapskate Booker Prize (worth only a fifth of the Wolfson), some complained that the notice period of three months for completion of the essay was too short. Being a hack, I argued that the incentive of £10 per word if successful should overcome that problem. It is the framing of the question which is more complicated. It needs to be expressed in a way which could be answered by supporters of the euro as well as opponents. Hence the word ‘necessary’. The best answer will not be written by someone whose motive is to destroy or preserve the euro but by someone who understands how to retro-fit emergency exits to the ‘burning building’ that William Hague predicted. Given the balance of economic forces at this moment, one feels that, to achieve the right answer, it probably helps to be German.
• This column has already complained, apropos of the Liam Fox affair, that a greater corruption than shoving work the way of your best man is to put the bureaucracy in charge of politicians’ conduct. Sir Gus O’Donnell’s report on the Fox affair actually states that, from now on, ministers must inform their departments of discussions with outside groups. The servants are the masters now. But it is against the public interest that ministers have so little political support and outside advice. When he came into office, David Cameron, anxious to avoid accusations of copying Tony Blair, cut down on the special advisers (‘spads’) each minister is allowed.
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