But, I repeat, Mr Hague's sexuality was not relevant, and he was a fool to make it so by his statements. What matters now is the lack of judgment in the way this has been handled: a lack of judgment that calls into question whether he has the credibility to stay in his job.  Manchester plod put a brake on crime  Heir to Blair is out of line on the 50p class war tax  Mr Hague had a smooth run until his party was crushed in the 1997 election. He had entered the cabinet at the age of 35 and had a great future. He then formed a pact to support Michael Howard in the leadership election of that year, which was sensible. Stupidly, and motivated by the sort of ambition Mr Hague nurtured during his career in student politics, he reneged on the deal and won himself. This was the worst thing that could have happened to him, and not just because of what it said about his integrity.  He was too inexperienced to lead his party, especially when it had been literally cut in half by the election and was in a state of trauma. His leadership was disastrous, with one misjudgment about policy and people after another. His best decision was to resign with dignity after the defeat in 2001, following an appalling election campaign. His rehabilitation on the back benches was impressive. Belatedly, he acquired maturity.  Yet the errors of judgment continued to jump out. He was so close to Lord Ashcroft that he became almost his personal property, and was taken in by him on promises about becoming resident for tax purposes in the United Kingdom. As shadow foreign secretary, he didn't distinguish himself with his policy on the Lisbon Treaty. And finally, he saw nothing wrong with sharing a hotel room with a young man half his age, giving rise to speculation that the man is his catamite.  I can't understand why Christopher Myers, the adviser in question, was put on the public payroll when Mr Hague had people working for him already who were far more qualified; nor why, at a time of cuts, he was allowed to have a third adviser when other ministers could have only two. That is very much a matter of public interest, and the reasoning is yet to be adequately explained.  Mr Hague has long disclaimed an ambition to lead his party again, and after this we can safely say he won't. But he raises questions, by his conduct, of whether he has the credibility to stay in office. He may be less than one more error of judgment away from kissing that goodbye, too.
The Foreign Secretary has called into question his credibility to stay in    office, writes Simon Heffer.