Far be it from me to point the accusing finger….

Sean Gabb

Of course, *IF* Mr Hague delights in a spot of bum fun – and I have no evidence whatever that he does – it’s hardly a sick bag matter. Certainly, it’s far less our concern than if he were flipping properties or otherwise fiddling his expenses. Indeed, the fact that he *MIGHT* have misled the public is of no consequence. When you have no right to ask a particular question, you have no reason to complain if you are not given a true answer.

No, what I dislike about William Hague is that he acted in 2001 *AS IF* he’d been bribed or blackmailed to throw the election, and he then somehow made millions for giving his crap speeches all over the place, and he appears to have been pushing like mad for support of British military involvement in America’s wars. He also helped stitch us up over the Lisbon referendum. All this is surely a product more of stupidity than of villainy. But I see no reason to think better of him for that.

If revelations that he has been more than “posing as a somdomite” are the only way of wiping that grin from his face, just watch how old-fashioned I can become!


  1. Hagues antics are of zero interest except that the bozo he was photographed with in the park is, I believe, paid for out of the public purse. If that is so and if the fellow in question has been put on the public payroll for reasons other than the job he is supposed to be doing, then that IS of interest to the tax paying mug in the street.

  2. I’m curious as to what you think Mr Hague could have done differently in 2001. It is my recollection that the nation was indulging in a collective madness and that nothing Mr Hague could have done would have given him any chance of an election victory.

    Under the circumstances, facing the total hostility of the BBC and newspapers and with Conservatism being seen by the gullible masses as something near a fascist ideology, simply holding the Conservative party together was his first task, which he fulfilled.

  3. The Liberals won a far more sweeping victory in 1906. The Tory response backfired when they failed to win either of the 1910 elections. But they almost won, and before then they were winning bye-elections in places like Peckham. They did this by having a strategy of resistance that rested on a clear narrative in which the Liberals were cast as the villains.

    WH had a far less with it government after 1997. He could have demonised it from day one. Instead, I recall his recommendation to rename Heathrow after the Princess of sodding Wales, and his “In Europe, not ruled by Europe” crap, and his dithering over the Serbian War, and his inability to lead the fuel protests by saying he’d stop the endless rise in excise duty, and his silence over the foot and mouth horror, and his general stupidity and lack of leadership. I said repeatedly at the time that I could have done a better job. I still believe I could have – and I hadn’t spent my whole adult life grooming myself for the job in which he found himself.

    If it does turn out that he worships at the altar of passive lust, I hope it destroys him – not because of the sex, which is neither here nor there, but because he might have been paying for his totty with our money.

    And ultimately, I hope he’s destroyed for what he did and failed to do in 1997-2001.

  4. I understand your points and sentiments, certainly the Conservative Party did a completely pathetic job at any opposition. However, to blame that on Mr Hague seems to me to be missing the wider picture.

    The Conservative Party had undergone a collective collapse in confidence and self belief, it was not capable of oganising any kind of sustained campaign of opposition. It was too busy indulging in worries about whether it was a ‘nasty party’ and too busy chewing on its own entrails to function properly. Any attack on Labour was immediately undermined by Conservatives who were trying to show theycould be ‘relevant’ and ‘modernisers’ by attacking their own side.

    Too many senior members of the Conservative Party were too busy deliberately sabotaging their own party and the general cultural assumption had permeated even conservative types, that Conservatism was generally associated with being cruel and was on the wrong side of history.

    I am certain that you would have been completely correct in outlining an effective strategy to put the searchlight on Labour and its illiberal policies, to change the narrative to how Labour was centralising, wasteful, shallow and undemocratic. However, that is to assume that there was a coherent organisation capable of, at the very least, not deliberately sabotaging its own efforts.

    Maybe you are right in your disdain for Mr Hague, but i think the matter is deeper, the almost total moral collapse of Conservatism was a phenomenon in its own right that was much larger than him. I don’t think it was entirely out of the question that Mr Blair could have achieved his stated goal of a permanent ‘progressive’ establishment in Britain. It was very close.

  5. The job of a leader is to lead – to bring over or to shake off dissidents, and to communicate a clear vision to everyone around. William Hague never showed the slightest ability or inclination to do any of this.

    Lenin did a fine job of leading the Bolsheviks after 1905. Hitler led the National Socialists with unerring confidence through the unwelcoming late 1920s. Even Balfour did a good job with the Tories after 1906 until he lost those two close elections. I don’t expect WH to have been another Lenin or Hitler, or even a Balfour. But some semblance of leadership would have dealt with the poroblems you mention.

    The man put himself up for the job. He plainly wasn’t up to the job. He fluffed every test while he held the job. All that happened was his fault.

    The more I think about them, the more I want these allegations regarding his private life to be proven true. Putting your totty on the payroll may be common enough in Europe. I don’t think it’s acceptable yet in England.

  6. I agree that Mr Hague was uninspiring and lacking in effectiveness. He certainly didn’t have the leadership abilities of a Statesman, however who else was there? The Conservative Party was shell shocked and no one else was ready to stand up and take the challenge.

    He was weak and alternately tried to appease the new Labour zeitgeist and then make vaguely conservative stands. A combination that pleased no one. I just think it all went a lot deeper than his weaknesses, to blame him for the madness of the time is to miss a great deal.

    I would love to be able to understand why Britain changed the way it did. Why did the media so collectively swing to an intolerant ‘progressive’ position? Why did the public culture swing so totally to the left? Why did the conservatives suffer such a complete moral collapse?

    Those are big questions that i don’t think have been adequately addressed by anyone yet. Focusing on the unfortunate Mr Hagues weaknesses doesn’t really help us understand that. (unless you think that with a different, dynamic leader the situation could have been different?)

  7. Read my bookd “Cultural Revolution, Culture War”. This provides some explanation of what has happened.

    As for William Hague, I think the Tories would have found a better leader by holding a raffle among the House of Commons catering staff.

  8. Britain, as in the British people, didn’t change too much.
    The Conservative Party destroyed itself from inside because it had a leader who was stepping outside that consensus that is meant to lead to collectivised organisation and control.
    Whatever her many faults, Mrs T and team (Norman Tebbit for one) did a great job of steering Britain away from national suicide and into a modicum of freedom.
    She had to be smashed and she was.
    Then the Tories lost their way, as they were supposed to, and Tony and team came along looking, in effect, more conservative than the Conservatives.

  9. Sean Gabb, May 1999:
    For the public interest, I wish that some dark secret about Mr Hague would be revealed – the sort that would make it impossible for him to continue as party leader

    Alas, too little too late. Though it is true that the television press were far more openly biased against the Tories turn-of-the-century than they had become by Howard’s leadership. I think it became so obvious and was pointed out by so many people that they had to make at least a pretence of balanced reporting.

  10. Personally, I think the sharing a hotel room with a male aide is more than a little strange unless they were intimately involved – the denial does nothing to convince me either way. So what if Ffion got pregnant? That does not show anything at all about the relationship with the aide…

Leave a Reply