After all, there have been rumours about Hughes' sexuality ever since he was elected to Parliament in the Bermondsey bye-election and disgraced himself by condoning the homophobic campaigning of his supporters against Peter Tatchell. The gossip at the time was that there was not a single straight candidate in that election. Subsequently, Hughes has had a vague reputation for not being safe in taxis. How could he possibly think, after one of the other candidates was outed for rent boys, that he could possibly escape outing by the tabloid press?
I am not a member, or even a fan, of the Liberal Democrats. But right now we need a left-centre opposition to the war. The LDs have a job to do and they are really not doing it. The dithering over Kennedy's drinking, and the Oaten mess, and now this - whom the gods wish to destroy, they inflict with an inadequate sense of the need to cover one's arse at all times.
Which is sort of how I feel about Galloway. My private conviction is that he is a crook and a chancer and a misogynist and a power-worshipper, who is no great use to the anti-war movement. What I think can be agreed on - and was important before the Celebrity Big Brother thing - is that he has long-standing form for looking vaguely bad, going back to the War on Want expenses row. Even if he has not done anything bad, he has taken insufficient care not to appear to be doing bad things.
After the WoW expenses mess, he really needed not to get caught up in other dodgy charities whose accounts are not available to the Charity Commissioners, or to have a wife who is far too close to oil smugglers, or to hang out socially with torture- and massacre-prone dictators. The fact that he has done all these things indicates poor judgement...
And his behaviour on CCB has not entirely helped either.
But what do I know? I want a Chantelle-Preston-Tracy-Maggot orgy to take place in the next 24 hours, and I want Pete Burns to die by exploding lips. I obviously know nothing.