If you thought the government coalition negotiations were complex and a turn up for the books, Guido thinks it would have been fascinating to have been a fly on the wall when this campaign coalition against the LibDems was brought together. Here is the first look at the list of “patrons” of the NO to AV campaign who under the presidency of Labour’s Margaret Beckett will represent the campaign for next May’s referendum:

• David Blunkett MP
• Lord Falconer QC
• Lord Prescott
• Lord Reid
• Emily Thornberry MP
• Ken Clarke QC MP
• William Hague MP
• Steve Norris
• Baroness Warsi

Seeing old enemies Hague and Prezza united against the LibDem dominated Yes-2-AV campaign will be interesting…

While the PM is leading a delegation of Ministers and British representatives to suck up to China, a country that through debt have half the world by the metaphorical balls, there seems to be one key figure missing. Why isn’t the Foreign Secretary William Hague on the trip?

Surely there are diplomatic conversations that need to be had face to face that should be undertaken by the relevant member of the government. It seems especially odd given the Education Secretary went along for the ride. Perhaps these foreign trips don’t seem so exciting to the Foreign Secretary alone, or without a stop over in Dubai on the way back…

As William Hague joined Sapper Matthew Westen on the Andrew Marr Show this past Remembrance Sunday the campaign aide he would later appoint as the third Special Adviser to Her Majesty’s Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was giving a running commentary in an online chatroom.

Hague told Andrew Marr’s viewers that the Conservatives would, if they won the election, make the war in Afghanistan the government’s “single most urgent focus”. Hague solemnly thanked Sapper Westen for all he had done and all he had sacrificed in Afghanistan. Meanwhile at his keyboard Christopher Myers was online, tapping away chatting to his online friends:

“There was a chap on the the Marr show today, easily younger than me, who had lost his legs and one arm. I know that people sign up for the armed forces in the anticipation of conflict, and casualties are inevitable, but it’s all the harder to justify when it’s in the name of an unwinnable quagmire which is nothing more than a political folly.“

In public Hague was saying

“We’re here to make our own nation more secure and our allies more secure. We’re here really to try to make sure that Afghans can look after their own affairs and their own security in the future without Afghanistan presenting a danger to the rest of the world.”

In private that very same Remembrance Sunday, Chris Myers answered a chatroom friend in response to the question “What motivation do our soldiers of today have in Afghanistan?” candidly:

“Some vague notion that creating a stable state in Afghanistan, which the Soviets before us couldn’t do, will defeat global terror. It doesn’t exactly stand up to scrutiny – terror will always find a home and the major terror plots executed or foiled in the UK have all been home grown.”

In public Hague took the line “We regard progress in Afghanistan, and in the closely-related problems of Pakistan, as the single most urgent focus in foreign affairs for our work as a new government. Failure there would leave the world, ourselves included, much more open to terrorist attack.”

The dissonance between the line Hague gives to the public, and the line the close friend he would appoint as his Foreign Office Special Adviser gives his friends in private raises many questions, not the least of which being: Why did he appoint Myers?

Guido thinks we need to know:

1. Did Mr Hague discuss with Mr Myers his views with regard to the government’s number one foreign policy priority before giving him the Special Advisers job in the FCO. If not, why not?
2. Does the Foreign Secretary privately agree with his close aide that the war in Afghanistan is an “unwinnable quagmire”?
3. Did Christopher Myers pass Developed Vetting before he was appointed to a position which would give him access to sensitive documents?
4. If he passed Developed Vetting, why did it not pick up that he was politically unsuitable for the job he was given?
5. Did Christopher Myers lie about his true feelings in order to secure the job, or were his views on British foreign policy known to Mr Hague?

More to follow…

Guido learnt that William Hague had pulled out of an “in conversation” this lunch time with the Telegraph’s Peter Oborne. Quick off the mark the CCHQ spinners were suggesting that Guido had got his facts wrong and that the “in conversation” was with Gove, who has stepped in as a replacement. Complete and utter spin.

Before embarking on such sub-par spinning perhaps they should have checked page 84 of the official conference handbook, which has a rather prominent half-page advertisement:

3/10 for effort. See Coulson later…

As William Hague is trailed by photographers and the news channels every time he moves around the conference centre, with Ffion glued to his side, an old hand informs Guido that Hague has a history of hotel bedroom trouble…

Aged seventeen at a Young Conservatives conference in Scarborough, young Billy returned from the bar to find his room at The Grand Hotel stripped of all furniture and belongings. With only the carpet left he had little choice other than to curl up and sleep on the floor. You wouldn’t get that at the Hotel du Vin. But who was the prankster who had slipped the hotel porter a few quid for the key? Step forward Eric Pickles…

UPDATE : A co-conspirator writes to correct the location : “That was in 1978 at Harrogate. The snow had been falling steadily from early Friday. So when a crowd of North West YCs came out of their hotel (next door to the Yorskhire area Hotel) there was wunderkind, so what we did we do? We pelted him with snowballs.”

Buried away in the Sunday Times was a poll on the Hague story – 46% of people asked think the Foreign Secretary was telling the truth about his relationship with Christopher Myers. That leaves over half the country doubting the Foreign Secretary’s words.

Asked about that statement, a small majority of 59% think he was right to publish it leaving a lot doubting Hague’s political judgement. On whether it was right to share a room  a slim majority (43% to 42%) think not. For those lining up to say this is a non-story, perhaps they should take on board that well over half of voters now have serious doubts about the man representing them on the global stage. Even the loyalists at ConservativeHome have registered a drop in approval. Easy on those “I will survive” tweets…

Another day and still the newspapers are poring over Hague’s statement. Many “experts” have been wheeled out to criticise the foolishness of opening up to such an extent with the Telegraph leading the angle. The also look at his voting record and the Indy suggests there is whiff of homophobia about the statement. Tory MPs are quoted criticising the judgement of sharing a room with an aide, especially given the rumours that have circulated for years.

The Mail and The Mirror both speculate whether Hague will walk.

The TV channels have turned their attention to speculation about the Sundays…

UPDATE: The New York Times questions the nuclear denial tactic.

If Hague had kept an experienced press handler like William Littlejohn as his SpAd he wouldn’t be in this situation would he? He wouldn’t haven’t released that stupid statement on Monday, which brought him more unwanted press attention. He wouldn’t have released that cynical, Aitkenesque, “sword of fidelity” statement yesterday. All in all, he has only himself to blame for being ill-advised and has shown a staggering lack of judgement.

“Extraordinary”, “astonishing” and “startling” seem to be the words deployed by this morning’s newspapers in response to Hague’s nuclear statement last night. Nick Robinson was lost for words on News at Ten. The Sun manages to criticise the legitimate questioning of Hague’s judgement as the “debasement of politics” with a straight face. Over at The Guardian, the employment of Myers is questioned and The Mail join them in questioning whether it was necessary to divulge so much information and why this was done. The Mirror are somewhat on a high-horse asking if this is what Palmerstone would have done.

If the strategy of the statement was to kill the story on Blair’s big day, seven national newspaper have splashed it on the front pages and the news channels have gone into overdrive. Despite the expected Twitter storm, it seems most realise the questioning is legitimate after all. A dangerous tactic has been chosen by the government, that has set noses sniffing in Westminster. If anyone is giving this story legs, it’s certainly not blogs…

Coincidently William Hague is meeting with Guido later this morning and there will be a joint press conference at about 10.30. Guido Westerwelle his German counterpart that is.