Perkins & the Hain Resignation

Morning Perkins - Pity about this Hain business, what?

Well, he did deceive the authorities, Sir!

"Deceive", Perkins! That's a loaded word!! It was just an administrative error.

Well, there are errors and errors.

Don't beat about the bush, Perkins. What on earth do you mean?

Well, he didn't declare donations of over 100,000 as required.

Yes, but anyone can make a mistake.

Agreed Sir, but we all have to accept the consequences of our mistakes, don't we?

I'm not sure I'd go that far, Perkins. After all, we are public servants ....

All the more reason, Sir. And there's one thing I just don't understand. The Labour Party had just received 180,000 of public money for training about the implementation of the new regulations about donations.

Jolly good Perkins; an excellent use of public money - but what is your point?

My point is firstly that someone clever enough to be a minister shouldn't have needed public money spent on training him to obey simple rules and secondly that the training seems to have been useless anyway, since he didn't follow them.

I must say, Perkins, you do nit-pick at times. As I said before, it was a simple mistake; the whole thing has been blown out of all proportion.

They why are the police involved, Sir?

I suppose they've got nothing better to do. You'd think they'd be out maintaining speed-cameras or something useful instead of rummaging about in the internal business of the Labour Party.

But it's all about "confidence", Sir. You said yourself only yesterday that this is crucial. The public needs to be confident that its ministers A) can manage to understand the law well enough to obey it and B) are not going senile and forgetting things.

Well, I'm confident he'll be vindicated just as Darling will over Northern Rock.

Are you confident enough to have a small wager on both counts, Sir?