I’m about to leave to catch a flight to Hannover where I am speaking at a conference on Saturday. But, I go with a certain incredulity in my head.

The William Hague story is being debated this morning in various media. He is the Foreign Secretary, a senior politician, and is accountable to the electorate. He should be scrutinised accordingly. His judgements should be questioned and subjected to pressure testing. This includes the nature and qualifications of the people he appoints to public offices paid for by the taxpayer.

So, why are all the valid criteria for questioning being confused with what he wears? Apparently, his judgement is questionable because he has now been photographed wearing a baseball cap (in diverse directions) several times in his life. He even wore shorts at some event.

Does this guy get no time off without some phtotographer pursuing him? Is he not allowed to wear what he likes? Is he not given any space to be uncalculating in his vesture?

This is boggling and puts a serious question over the culture that perpetuates this nonsense.

Song commented on my last post with a wonderful phrase that sums this whole pathetic business up:

We elect personalities, but don’t want to accept them as human persons.

She goes on:

Rather, we want an embodiment (or dare I say incarnation?) of certain policies or principles, the ones we’ve selected as important. We want this projected-idea-person to make our lives better without our having to change anything, make any difficult decisions, or undergo any hardship. When this proves impossible we get very upset.

Isn’t it time we grew up?