The Sketch: 'I am responsible. Resign? That would be dishonourable' - how Clarke trumped even Tony Blair's previous best

They can't have been feeling very chipper on the back benches but they might have put on a better show for the cameras. The local elections are quite important aren't they? Oh, insignificant?

There's life in the government's media machine yet. And it's true, the Deputy Prime Minister's inner life has pushed yet another tax credit horlicks off the news schedules. And Patricia Hewitt has brought the Prime Minister back into the headlines as the patron saint of the NHS. And Charles Clarke has ... but there are limits to spin. The Home Secretary told us that the number of foreign drug-dealing, axe-murdering paedophiles who should have been deported (but were released into the community) was "very, very small". It turns out to have been 288.

Labour's semantic unit is even now working on the meaning of "very, very small".

But even in his mortal throes, the Home Secretary rose magnificently to the occasion. He said, in précis: There has been a shocking and unforgivable operational failure. The first duty of everyone in public life is to take responsibility. I am responsible. I take full responsibility. For putting it right. Resign? That would dishonourable. The worse the mess I've made, the more important it is that I stay.

That trumps Tony Blair's previous best - "I take full responsibility for having done nothing wrong." By Charles Clarke's logic, Mrs Thatcher would be in her 27th year of power. The PM defended his Home Secretary only by saying: "It is as a result of the Home Office having put out the figures that we actually know them." It's not much of a defence, when you look at it. "Iran is not Iraq" has more argumentative power.

David Cameron asked twice: "Why were these 288 prisoners described as 'very, very few'." The Prime Minister evaded, avoided and, for a pretty straight kind of guy, sounded very shifty. It was, however, a guileless Robert Wareing who made him look worse. Mr Wareing rose, looking like a small, underground mammal. He looked to his leader. He started by referring to the Prime Minister's habit of praising at the dispatch box soldiers who had lost their lives. Would he therefore spare five or 10 minutes to go to Committee Room 12 after PMQs to meet members of the families of soldiers who've lost their lives in Iraq?" The PM replied: "I yield to no one in my support and admiration for the work that our armed forces do in Iraq," (it's a competitive event, supporting our armed forces) "and it's important they know we fully support them." (So of course I'll come and visit their families?) "It is also important however," (Uh-oh) "from my perspective and from the perspective of those who are serving out there in Iraq" (ye-ee-ess?) "that they know that we are fully behind the work they do" (so obviously I'll go and meet the families?). "They are there with a United Nations resolution" (the UN resolution, remember, made no mention of Committee Room 12) "and the full support of the Iraqi government" (who would obviously need to give their consent to visit Committee Room 12). The soldiers were "doing a job that was right and worthwhile and absolutely necessary for this country's security."

It was horrible, actually. But Charles Clarke has given him the reason to go on. To put it all right. Iraq. The Home Office. The pensions crisis they've personally created. The angry NHS. On that basis, these ministers will be with us for ever.

simoncarr75@hotmail.com