IN the end, being a good or a bad Prime Minister is all down to judgement.
In the case of Andy Coulson, David Cameron got it badly wrong as he himself was force to admit this afternoon.
It was suggested back in July 2009 when the then Leader of the Opposition hired Coulson as his head spin doctor - despite the fact he had resigned from editor of the News of the World for breaching people's privacy - that he was making a big mistake. The suspicion was that it was in some way a favour to keep Rupert Murdoch, the media mogul, sweet.
During his time at No 10, Mr Cameron was keen, as indeed he was again today, to point out how no one had a single complaint against Coulson in the work he did at the heart of power. Indeed, the PM was also keen to point out after the 2010 election how this had not been the case with Labour press chiefs Alastair Campbell and Damian McBride. He obviously cannot take the high moral ground now.
So has the PM been damaged by this? Yes. Fatally? No.
But Labour will no doubt seek to make as much political capital as possible over it, particularly as Ed Miliband made great play in standing up to the News International empire during the Leveson inquiry. The Labour leader this lunch-time insisted an apology was not good enough; Mr Cameron must explain why he famously gave Coulson a second chance.
For the public, the fall-out to the hacking scandal might make many voters reconfirmed in their low opinion of the Conservative leader, who last time round failed to get a majority despite the tired-looking premiership of Gordon Brown, which was in charge when the financial storm hit.
The latest controversy might just add to the cumulation of events that tend to hang onto a Prime Minister as he or she trudges through their time in power. It could be another factor when people cast their vote next May.
As for the present, Mr Cameron has to face Mr Miliband at Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow. Hold onto your hats, it could be a bumpy ride.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article