I'm not going to bite at the Cadman bit: it's turning into a Rorschach test for political inclinations. However, I will have a go at your February comment -- they already made it the shortest month of the year, allowing us to enjoying back to back 31 day months mid summer in July & September. How much more can the calendar do for you?

Newsflash for Chris: English Royal family members are actually humans and nto Shakespearian caricatures and therefore as equally useable as biological cannon fodder for humans silly wars as descendants of peasants and other commoners. Thanks for nothing, Harry, but welcome to the asylum....

I agree, David. The thing is something was likely said that enraged him but it may well have been said with the best intentions during a moment of political bargaining. Given the weight of the policial climate that week and the state of his health, Cadman may well have been on a hair trigger so the anger his wife saw and the cause for it are entirely explicable - as would be his discretion not to discuss it. Even with my delight at Tory misfortune, it is unfortunate that this came out now as I fully expect these sorts of political offers and pressurings happen all the time and that nothing particularly untoward really occurred - though something likely did occur.

"Harry Wales"? They're gonna have to do better than that in future. I'm sure that could have been easily cracked in any genx40 group blog session.

Also out for future reference: Harry Prince, Harry Ayrtodathrone, Harry Charlesson, Harry Williamsbrother ...

Hey - why dontcha restart the Campblog, wouldja?

I would/will. Free time busy busy with iMovie documentaries that few will ever see. Plus problems with stupid stupid stupid iWeb that I have to get to.

Hans: Are you telling me they don't fly around in skin tight costumes and fight the Legion of Doom?! No!!!

I am pretty sure I was lauding him for actually getting his hands dirty in the fighting, and thus emulating some of his more illustrious fighting ancestors. In fact I am pretty sure I was encouraging the rest of them to get in on it, too. I would be perfectly happy if the majority of the royals fought in most of Britain's wars. That's how they started out, a few thousand years ago. They have kind of forgotten the game plan.

Being ever the peacemaker, I think Chris and Hans really are in agreement that superficial gestures are not what makes leadership and that Harry's real example - even to the point of the anonymity of his participation - is a refreshing surprise and one that we would wish for more of. Mitt Romney's lads might, for example, take a lesson from this situation...and John McCain's family might also be recognized has having provided a parallel example of quiet leadership and committment to public duty.

May I humbly take the olive branch offered by Alan and retract my lashing out at Chris? I take Alan's guiding words to heart but I do sincerely welcome Harry to the asylum.

The Cadman Affair is a tempest in a teapot, signifying nothing. All I take from it is that Tory political hacks are sleazy, that Cadman himself was a uniquely individual style of politician and that his family are not part of the mainstream in their behaviour. All of this is true whether or not the bribe was offered. None of this is new.

<i>...All I take from it is that Tory political hacks are sleazy...</i><p>I don't understand why you used the word "Tory" in that sentence as it works perfectly well without it.

"Dr Exuberant" -- I continue to think that your captchas are mind-readers.

My take on the Cadman affair?

It's a sin. That much is clear. Is it a mortal sin? I tend to think not. (Though in May/June 2005, I'd have been frothing at the mouth about something like that if the Liberals had been the ones caught at it.)

But it isn't my judgment that matters -- it's the people's judgment.

I'd say, if this is government-toppling stuff, let the opposition pass a motion at the next opportunity and take us into an election. They have the votes, and I don't think we're going to learn anything new about it -- it was offered, and Harper winked at the offer. And dissembled before Parliament.

You know what? I think it's 0.5% off the popular vote. This is the sort of thing that is remembered in the polling booth by a head scratching swing voter.

I think you're right -- it's a scratch that, if corroborated by future behaviour, will become part of a narrative sinking the current government. But not a firing offense on its own.

And it may make the PM less self-righteous during the next campaign, which is all to the good.

And the best Captcha ever: "Carlo Anaconda!"

Yes, the Cadman "issue" will likely be a part of a salvo fired at the good ship CPC during the next election (which if my sighting of the HUGE Federal Conservative Kingston candidate #23524 sign across from the ambassador will be in the coming months), but not a killing blow. I mean, its not like calling Harper a Kitten Eater. It will however be one of the usual tidbits of information that the typical voter might remember, like, "that Harper Guy drinks Timmies and not Starbucks! He's just like ME!"...

I think we are insufficiently outraged at this issue. The shrugging "Everybody does it" attitude just indicates how blase we are about direct attacks on democracy. We shouldn't tolerate this from any party or cabal-within-a-party.

My "captcha" thing was "Misty James". Wasn't she a porn star in the '80s?

No, David is just feeling bad about his earlier comments.

"Funds nearly" ... hahaha.

... and why not "Harry Windsor" ??

<blockquote>You send one, non-affiliated, guy to sound him out and be entirely deniable.</blockquote>

One thing Harper has never worried about is deniability. He's consistently displayed contempt for the idea of "image," and he sneaks into the HoC through the back door every day. Only because it's nearer to his parking spot.

I honestly think it wouldn't have occurred to Harper to be deniable about this - Cadman was once a party member and, as Alan notes, this sort of think probably goes on all the time.

Just a guess.