Dominic Grieve is a bigger scandal than Andy Coulson

The public may not be much interested in the Murdoch Affair but the importance of an issue is not measured by the level of public interest in it. If it were and if the news channels only covered the things the public loves we'd be treated to exhaustive coverage of kittens in trees, car chases and executions. Bully for the great British public.
Equally, those tempted to dismiss the implications of the Prime Minister's involvement in this stramash might consider whether they'd be quite so generous if the scandal had erupted - like some giant suppurating boil - while Labour were in government. As a general rule if you think something would be a scandal if the other mob were in power there's a good chance it should also be thought a scandal when your friends are in government.
Of course it should have come to a boil (ha!) while Labour were in office. But it didn't and so it's David Cameron that's the unlucky man in the arena, trapped by the spotlight and subject to heckling from the cheap seats. That's the way it goes and there's little point in complaining that it's unfair.
I think it's possible to defend David Cameron's decision to hire Andy Coulson despite all the "baggage" Coulson brought with him. But doing so requires one to admit that it was a shabby thing that is no less shabby for being thought, perhaps rightly, necessary. Again, the road to power is paved with compromise and many of these compromises are grubby things indeed.
Consider this thought experiment however. Suppose, two years before the last election, some billionaire plutocrat told David Cameron he wanted to donate several million pounds to the Conservative party but this financial support would only be forthcoming if Cameron gave the billionaire a say in Shadow Cabinet appointments and, consequently, in the make-up of Cameron's first cabinet as Prime Minister. If you want the money - cash you need, I might point out - you have to sack this guy. If he stays so does my cheque. Replace him with someone I consider acceptable and the money will flow. In such circumstances, would you be encouraged or depressed if Cameron acceded to this request, sacked his would-be minister and took the cash? What would that tell you about Cameron's judgement?
And yet this is precisely the bargain the Sun offered David Cameron. As James has reported on several occasions the newspaper was grievously (ha!) disappointed by Dominic Grieve's views on crime. Grieve, then shadow Home Secretary, was considered too liberal, too namby-pamby and not nearly keen enough on hanging and flogging. Accordingly Rebekah Wade (as was) made it clear to Cameron, via Andy Coulson, that the Sun would not shine on the Conservatives while Grieve was in the running to be Home Secretary in a new Conservative government. (I should note that I've not seen any persuasive refutation of James's reporting. This should not surprise you.)
There was nothing wrong with this per se. The newspaper, like any other interest group, had the right to make its feelings known. Nevertheless, the Sun was essentially threatening Cameron: appoint someone we deem acceptable or face the consequences. Fair enough, again.
So how did Cameron respond? By sacking Dominic Grieve and replacing him with "pub-friendly" Chris Grayling. That is, Cameron caved. In every essential respect this craven acquiescence effectively granted the Sun a veto on at least one cabinet appointment. And not the Secretary of State for Palookaville either, but the Home Secretary! A position that, though not quite what it once was, is still one of the most senior posts in the administration of the state!
The issue is not whether the Sun's appraisal of Grieve's strengths or weaknesses was accurate. That's irrelevant. No, what matters is that Cameron made the deal. He could have told the Sun to go to hell and accepted the consequences. Perhaps that would have been a brave - ie, reckless - move but it would have been more honourable than his meek capitluation to tabloid blackmail.
Of course one may argue that the Sun was merely reflecting the views of its readership and Cameron was sensible to keep those in mind. Nevertheless the fact is that he allowed the newspaper to dictate terms in ways that are, at the very least, unseemly. There was nothing, I think, illegal about this but that doesn't make Cameron's submission right either.
I discussed this with Tim Montgomerie on Twitter last night and Tim said he was pleased the Sun lobbied "hard on behalf of their readers who wanted a tough Home Secretary". Nor, he suggested, was there anything "scandalous about a newspaper saying a spokesman doesn't speak for a majority of British people on crime". So far so good. That is, we agree on this. But Tim, I think (he'll correct me if I am wrong), is concentrating on his preferred outcome (moving Dominic Grieve) whereas I'm more exercised by the process (the way in which Grieve was moved) and by the explicit quid pro quo offered by the Sun: Sack Grieve and we support you; keep him and we won't. This, in common parlance, is a form of bribe and Cameron accepted it.
In doing so he sacrificed his judgement to that of the lowest common denominator and granted the Sun newspaper the power to rule on his own appointments. Perhaps there's a distinction between a single wealthy individual and a tabloid newspaper notionally speaking on behalf of millions of readers having this kind of power over a putative Prime Minister but if there be such a distinction I hazard it's a thin one.
Again, it may be that Grieve was the wrong man to be shadow Home Secretary but the manner of his dismissal and what that says about the relationship between Cameron and the red tops and what that in turn says about British politics, our newspapers and our Prime Minister might, I would think, trouble people even if the public doesn't give a damn about any of it or even if it ended up producing a result you think preferable to the position that existed before the Sun intervened in the matter. To repeat myself, the issue is not of legality but of what it seemly. It is a problem of excessive deference to one interest, even if that interest be reasonably considered an important one.
It's too much to suppose that David Cameron will die with "Dominic Grieve" tattooed upon his heart but in a better world he might.