The role of William Hague

At the end of last year this site advocated William Hague replacing George Osborne as Shadow Chancellor with Mr Osborne moving to the foreign affairs post or to the Chairman's slot.  That advice wasn't taken but the status of William Hague remains a big issue.  Iain Dale has written an interesting article for this morning's Telegraph.  He advocates a bigger role for William Hague and other right-wingers in keeping the Conservative Party together during these rough times and into the future.  He believes that William Hague should become David Cameron's official deputy.  In ConservativeHome's poll of grassroots members Mr Hague recently reasserted his position as the most highly rated shadow cabinet minister.  He could help core vote Tories to understand Project Cameron.

David Cameron has been planning a larger role for his Shadow Foreign Secretary for some time.  Putting the hugely able David Lidington alongside him in the foreign affairs team was partly done in order to free the former Tory leader to be able to undertake more campaigning responsibilities - particularly in the north.

Some suspect that William Hague would succeed David Cameron if the modernisation project fails but the Shadow Foreign Secretary has been insistent - publicly and privately - that he doesn't want his old job back.

Comments

[James Maskell]

Good points there and sensible too. Hague wont want the leadership having had it before. He never had a chance at winning or making serious gains in 2001 so I think he can count himself forgiven on that one.

That said, he is needed to ensure party unity. The Party faithful still believe in him and he has an almighty lot to give to teh Party. Unfortunately, that doesnt pay as well as authoring biographies. Making him Deputy Leader would be a good decision by Cameron. Osborne may be unhappy that he would be third in command as it were, but then hes Shadow Chancellor, so he shouldnt feel that bad. Hes got plenty on his plate.

[tapestry]

Hague is doing well attacking the Constitution which is The Last Treaty, to quote Tomtom. Once that has gone through, the EU won't need to refer back to the nations ever again. Until the Constitution is defeated, Hague should not be moved. It's the number one job of the Party to oppose the Constitution, and Hague's doing it well. Leave him where he is.

[Richard North]

Hague is doing well attacking the Constitution ...

Posted by: tapestry | August 03, 2007 at 10:06

Not so sure he's doing that good a job – his understanding of the text seems to be slightly flawed.

[Ali Gledhill]

If I remember correctly, Hague was the first Tory leader not to become PM. It would be a shame to see his talent wasted; he still has much mileage on the front line. Indeed, if I were Cameron I would be very encouraged to have a skilled and experienced politician in my innner circle who has no intention of advancing their political career.

[Tony Makara]

Tapestry, I agree, I think William Hague is doing an excellent job as shadow foreign secretary and at this time I wouldnt move him. We need to have William Hague in position to keep the heat on Brown over the EU constitutional treaty and to continue pushing for an inquiry into the war in Iraq.

[Richard Hyslop]

The first Tory leader not to become PM was Austin Chamberlain.

[Curly]

"The Shadow Foreign Secretary has been insistent - publicly and privately - that he doesn't want his old job back."

It has always been wise for a politician never to covet a higher position (at least publicly.)

[Traditional Tory]

If I remember correctly, Hague was the first Tory leader not to become PM

There was also Austen Chamberlain, and possibly others

Hague wont want the leadership having had it before

Not what I heard. I have good reason for believing that Hague wants a second crack of the whip - but not at this stage in the game.

Despite Hague, Davis etc joining in the 'Moderniser' masquerade, we the grassroots know that they are our men - on the right and with deep roots in the party.

It is not only the leftism of Cameron and Osborne that marks them apart from the rest of us. They have no roots in the party structure. Unlike most of us, and Hague and Davis they didn't come up through the YCs FCS etc.

The people that count are all part of a 'band of brothers'. Let's keep things that way.

[gingeral]

I do actually think that Hague is genuine in not wanting the leadership back. He may change his mind once the Tories are back in power and the incumbent PM (whether Cameron or A N Other) steps down, but he's hardly going to want to risk going down in history as the man who was an unsuccessful leader of the opposition TWICE! The only way I can see him becoming Leader of the Opposition again is if Cameron loses the next election badly enough to merit his resignation and Davis, Fox, Osborne etc step aside and say they're backing Hague whether he likes it or not (a Howardesque coronation). But I think he has too much baggage, it will be seen as a step back into the past, Labour would have no problem attacking him. That said, if he could be persuaded to take on the Treasury then he should be moved there, Osborne is still far too lightweight, and the Tories badly need their reputation for economic competence back. I still think another reshuffle is needed before the next election, with promotions for Grayling, Duncan and possibly Foxy, and demotions for Osborne, Spelman and Lansley. Hague could certainly make a good deputy though, as would Davis, but it might be a good opportunity to bring back Sir Malcolm Rifkind (if he could be persuaded to take it!)

[Andrew S.]

It might only be me, and those I know personally, although I’ve never thought much of William Hague and nor have any of the people I know. Honestly, he wasn’t that great a leader in 2001 (although losing the election wasn’t his fault; IMO we would have lost regardless of the leader), and even in his current role seems to be far more interested with his private business affairs.

In all honestly, I would much rather see Hague moved to something like Defence (or maybe the backbenches) and have Liam Fox as Shadow Foreign Secretary.
I’m also very sceptical that Hague would do well as leader of the Conservative Party if Cameron’s project failed and he stepped down; we would be much better with Liam Fox as leader.

[Richard North]

Tapestry, I agree, I think William Hague is doing an excellent job as shadow foreign secretary and at this time I wouldnt move him. We need to have William Hague in position to keep the heat on Brown over the EU constitutional treaty ...

Posted by: Tony Makara | August 03, 2007 at 10:39

I would agree that we need a strong, effective shadow foreign secretary to fight the the EU constitution and make the case for a referendum. The Tories are our last best hope on this and it is essential that they succeed. It would also do the Party a great deal of good to have a "scalp" under the belt, forcing Brown into a U-turn on a referendum.

However, if I may rudely interrupt this Hague love-in, we should recall than, on the EU issue, this is a man with a history of unforced errors. Remember the "seven days to save the pound" and the fatuous "in Europe but not ruled by Europe" slogans?

In watching Hague's performance on the revamped constitution, he is running to form in adding to his unforced errors, being wrong in detail on several issues which, cumulatively, could weaken his case.

His errors are suggestive of a poor brief and a limited understanding of the nature of this treaty and he needs to up his game if we are going to win on this issue. We are not fighting against amateurs here - the "colleagues" are desperate for their treaty and will pull out all the stops to get it through. Furthermore, the major battlefield is going to be the UK as, if there is a referendum, the likelihood is of a "no" vote.

To that effect, this is friendly criticism, because - and I repeat - Hague must perform well on this issue and we want him to do that. But he is going to have to do better than he is doing at the moment.

[Edward Thomas]

I am now in the Autumn of a life largely characterised by perpetual disappointment with the Tory Party. In spite of its Historical all-time success with greats like Winston Churchill, Maggie Thatcher and Tory Blair - all now remembered as strong leaders - the Tories always manage to revert to the sort of crowd pleasing wishy washy bleeding heart Liberal Elite type mocking and protesting against "stand up to evil dictators" types like Winston,Maggie and ToryBlair horrified at a Norman Tebbitt "get on your bicycle" type or running after panderers to Social Welfarist opinion - like those who preside over the greatest folly in World History (the NHS which should long since have been replaced it with "Medical Insurance for everyman." and which after 60 years has never been copied by any other country on the face of the earth

The Great British pooblick want lower-middle and working class right wing values, aspirational society with discipline and defnitely want nothing to do with mass immigration, occupation and the imposition of totally alien cultures who bring the sort of Social breakdown and Ghetto Culture to large parts of the country.

All my life has been lived in the shadow of the Labour Party - determined to break the economy in the 1950's to 1970's and now determined to break the society with its Multiculturalism and Social Welfarism.

Come on - someone - take over and give the people strong leadership - not what they think they want !

[Patriot]

@Edward Thomas 11:37.

Edward, that's an interesting post and I can empathise with many of your comments. Having said that, you might like to go to the Guardian website and have a look an article today by Geoffrey Wheatcroft, titled:

""They still use the name Labour, but now only sneer at the working class.""

Intriguing that an article with a title like this should appear in the Guardian at all, but actually not out of line with a number of peices which have appeared in the media over the past few days, and are all good to see.

Food for thought...

And just to keep this post in tune with the thread - I like Hague, apart from a recent quote that he would have supported the Iraq invasion even knowing what we know now. If I have a concern it's that he is not in the role full time. There's a lot of work to be done, and I suspect that the shadow front bench in '96 and '97 were all full timers.

I think we need to hear more from our shadow chancellor though - there's no shortage of things to talk about...

[Paul Oakley]

Time for a virtual history point. I reckon Hague should have accepted Howard's offer of the dream ticket for the leadership. Howard (indeed anyone) would have lost in 2001, leaving Hague to scrape through to a small commons majority as leader in 2005.

[Dave J]

I still have very little doubt that Hague will one day be PM. He won't be the leader to bring the party back to power, though: he'll eventually be the successor to whoever that might be (and I suspect it won't be David Cameron).

[Chris King]

I think this is a very good option, a better option would have been to make Hague Shadow Chancellor, but we are where we are.

“He could help core vote Tories to understand Project Cameron”.

This really addresses what I believe to be at the heart of Cameron’s problems, namely the inability of those that surround Cameron to reach out to MPs and activists. However, project Cameron, needs to be defined and this essentially means four or five points of principle. At the moment all we have is mission statements attached to various policy areas. It’s the points of principle (what Cameron believes being a Conservative is about) that we can then hang policies from.

Cameron can’t be everywhere, so he needs to delegate and William Hague is just the man.

[David Belchamber]

Gingeral @ 11.0^:

"That said, if he (Hague) could be persuaded to take on the Treasury then he should be moved there, Osborne is still far too lightweight, and the Tories badly need their reputation for economic competence back. I still think another reshuffle is needed before the next election..."

We need a very solid perfomer as Shadow Chancellor, someone with great commonsense and sufficient gravitas, so Hague would be very good there. So might John Redwood or possibly Rifkind. We also need a very good perfomer to get the NHS back on the road. Liam Fox?

[The Huntsman]

It is thirty years and more since a politician came back from the dead to be PM (Wilson in 74) and before that Churchill, otherwise the tradition seems now to be that you get a couple of shots at it and then make way never to return.

One doubts that Hague, in the absence of ambition in that regard, would want to retrace his steps, but then if DC was wiped off his bike by one of Red Ken's bendy buses, who knows?

The issue of the referendum is so much of an Achilles Heel, potentially, for Macavity that he ought to get the Shadow Attorney to drop everything and work alongside him to help on the legal aspects. There is so much material to work with and he do worse than look at some of the serious commentaries on EU Referendum and Open Europe for some useful bludgeons to land on Labour.

I also feel that Rifkind's absence is to be regretted. Although he sits for K&C, he still looks and sounds like the very model of dour Scots rectitude and therefore would be a good foil for either Darling or Macavity. He would give a more heavyweight look to the top table.

Fox let Des Browne off over the RN Hostages and tends to invisibility. Why promote him?

Osborne lacks real gravitas which is essential for the appearance and substance of economic competence. Since that is the bottom line for this particular game, I would try and sub him with Rifkind and find him some consolation somewhere.

Apart from that I would not tinker too much.

[powellite]

Unlike most of us, and Hague and Davis they didn't come up through the YCs FCS etc.

The people that count are all part of a 'band of brothers'. Let's keep things that way."

'Trad' T - you sly old dog, you...you make your fellow 'believers' sound like a religious sect, with the initiation rights of having to go through YCs. I wasn't a part of YC either - does that disqualify me from doing anything in the party?

Good to see you committed to democracy in the party, reaching out to people with differing views in the pursuit of unity...

[gingeral]

Either Hague or Rifkind would eat Darling alive if they could be persuaded to put the hours in.

[Jack Stone]

If people really believe that banging on about the EU constitution is going to win votes or get the party back to power then they have learned nothing these past ten years.
Improving public services, saving the planet and having policys on crime that work and are not just the same old lock them all up nonsense and an immigration policy that is sensible, compassionate and doesn`t make the party seem like a collection of Alf Garnet type bigots is what will win and actually allow the party the gain the power to prevent further powers being given away to Brussels.

[Patriot]

Jack. I agree about immigration but not about the constitution. I think voters feel strongly about the EU providing the debate is in context. It's all about sovereignty and who governs Britain, us or Europe? Remember when absolute power goes to Europe, you will have no democratic rights. You won't be able to vote the government out because you don't like the policies - they will all be dictated by the EU which is not a democratic body. Remember also that a referendum was a Labour party committment, so this plays to an easily identified weakness. Something I posted on another thread yesterday.

""In my view we need to go with a crystal clear policy on Europe that says this far but no further. We should take the case of the metric martyrs as an example of something we would never allow to happen on our watch. For a government to allow a man to be hounded to death because he sold goods in pounds and ounces to customers who wanted to buy them in pounds and ounces is beyond disgust. We should commit to gaining Steve Thorburn a Royal pardon - the poor man still has a criminal record. Yes I know that Europe has U turned and now said that it will permit this, but it won't bring Steve Thorburn back. I mention this because it is symptomatic of the loss of sovereignty we have already experienced, it is a clear example of an issue which everyone can empathise with, and it demonstrates the real Labour party in government, the one which behind the spin cares nothing for the fate of individuals like Thorburn. We must remain committed to a referendum on the new treaty - voters want it. I could think of lots of other reasons why we should have a referendum, but that alone should be enough.""

[Martin Bristow]

To talk about the party,s immigration policy in the way that Jack Stone does makes me wonder whyhe ever called himself a conservative.There is nothing inherently bigoted or racist about past Conservative Immigration policy.The fact remains that our policy in this area has always carried public favour and I would wagerwill continue to do so.

Avoiding the subject and pretending that we can connect with the electorate solely on issues such as environmentalism is ill conceived and doomed to fail.

[Patriot]

Martin, did I missread Jack's post? I'm fully in favour of a firm line on immigration to replace the currently Labour policy of looking the other way, but I agreed with his line that it should be compassionate.

[Richard North]

If people really believe that banging on about the EU constitution is going to win votes or get the party back to power then they have learned nothing these past ten years.

Posted by: Jack Stone | August 03, 2007 at 14:47

It will do the former - on its own it will not do the latter. More to the point, the political dimension is not specifically about "Europe". For the Tories, it is about holding the government to a manifesto commitment, and forcing Brown into a humiliating retreat.

Dismissing that as "banging on" can only be an illustration of a lack of political acumen.

[Martin Bristow]

Why would anybody argue that our past immigration polcy lacked compassion?

[Patriot]

Martin, I obviously did miss some posts. I certainly wasn't arguing that. If I had any comment at all it would be that we don't seem to have a clear, firm policy on immigration which has any visibility at all at the moment. That I do think is a mistake.

[TomTom]

Jack Stone is obviously Lapsed Labour

[TomTom]

Jack Stone is obviously Lapsed Labour

[TomTom]

Jack Stone is obviously Lapsed Labour

[Martin Bristow]

The Conservative Party is not now nor as it ever been a collection of Alf Garnett's.Jack Stone should be ashamed for using such language.I would expect it from Labour but not our own side!

[The Huntsman]

If Brown is in a corner over the Referendum, which, as has been noted, was a manifesto commitment of some importance, and is facing an incipient revolt from some 40 of its MPs and some Trades Unions on the issue, and if the polls are right that a very large majority wants such a referendum and if his continued refusal to grant the promise upon which himself got elected, then why on earth should we let him off the hook?

Not least because the issue is actually important and affects the status of the UK as an Independent Nation State.

And if the polls are right, that would make for a large majority of the electorate being comprised of bigots.

Most of us will find the Alf Garnett reference offensive but ignorable.

[Patriot]

This from ConHome 3 April 2006:

""A new YouGov poll for MigrationWatch has found overwhelming support for an annual limit on immigration. Only 10% of voters think that the Government is listening to voter concerns on the issue. The recent finding that there is a backlog of up to 283,500 failed asylum seekers waiting to be 'removed' from Britain will have only fuelled voter exasperation."

[Ali Gledhill]

If people really believe that banging on about the EU constitution is going to win votes or get the party back to power then they have learned nothing these past ten years.

It's not about winning votes: its about allowing the votes to be cast.

[Martin Bristow]

I agree references to Alf Garnett and trivualising the EU issue are ignorable.My worry is they are put about by staunch Cameron loyalists to provoke and brand policy as too right wing to be considered credible.The leader would do well to ignore such trivualisation of the issues and seek unity and common purpose on these issues which should unite all True Tories.

[mark]

In the Mail today it's reported that as many as one in 11 British Muslims agree with and proactively support terrorism, this warning to the police is given by Mr Haras Rafiq, an adviser to the Government's preventing extremism taskforce. With 1.6million Muslims living in the UK, nine per cent is the equivalent of 144,000 people supporting terrorism. Our army's strength is 66900 men and 7500 officers, with 500 available in the UK at present. I wonder what Alf Garnett would have made of that.

[Cleo]

What would happen if there was a referendum and people voted yes to the treaty? While I agree that the majority of the public are midly sceptical about Europe it would be interesting to see what the turnout would be and what the result would be.

[Didactophobe]

William Hague is one of our biggest stars and I absolutely agree that we need him to be taking a bigger role. It seems to me that there is something very incongruous about Hague as Shadow Foreign Secretary: he has many very fine qualities, but diplomacy is not high on the list.

As I understand it, Sir Malcolm Rifkind was only willing to return to the front line if he could be Shadow Foreign Secretary. It makes enormous sense to me to have Hague's combative skills ripping Alistair Darling apart as Shadow Chancellor with Sir Malcolm's gravitas putting the boy Milliband in his place.

Cameron and Osborne are too young and inexperienced for them both to occupy the top two jobs. Since the environment is now a big priority for us, why not move Osborne there to project a youthful image and send a clear message as to its value to us as an electoral issue?

Cameron leading a team in which the other top jobs are occupied by heavyweight, experienced politicians would, I believe, begin to look like a winning team again.

[John Leonard]

Cleo@19:02

Now that is a very scary thought! If there were a 'Yes' vote the treaty would be ratified and the next phase of the European Super State would be rolled out.

I also expect the criticism of the EU from sceptics would increase in volume and frequency. The battle would continue.

However, this is currently a highly unlikely scenario. Just before Blair went to the treay negotiations there was a poll carried out by Yougov which will give you an idea of how unlikely an outcome, a yes vote is.

45% wanted to wait until they understood what the Treaty said.
40% would vote against the Treaty
04% would vote for the Treaty

In addition to this the poll also identifies that 60% think the EU has too much power.

Given the media coverage that the EU receives it seems highly unlikely that the 'Yes' lobby would even come close.

The full poll is here:

http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/Yatesresults070614.pdf

[Miss Tooty]

Other ministers seem to be doing Camerons job for him, why the hell ( even on holiday) isn't he attacking Brown on DNA on simple things like wearing no seatbelts/ dogs/pooing DAVE WAKE UP.

[Scotty]

"Cameron and Osborne are too young and inexperienced for them both to occupy the top two jobs. Since the environment is now a big priority for us, why not move Osborne there to project a youthful image and send a clear message as to its value to us as an electoral issue?"

To be fair Cameron and his campaign manager one George Osborne managed to win a leadership contest which included Rifkind, Clarke and the favourite David Davis. I totally agree about the political gravitas that Rifkind brings to the Conservative party and I have been an admirer of his for years, he is very respected in Scotland by people from all political camps.
But I also think that people underestimate Cameron and Osborne because of their youth, they have both been involved with Conservative party a lot longer than they have been MP's and we should not dismiss their previous experience.

[TomTom]

But I also think that people underestimate Cameron and Osborne because of their youth, they have both been involved with Conservative party a lot longer than they have been MPs

Therein lies the problem...they never gained any real world experience where life's scars provide insight - they have done remarkably little in life besides fkloat around London. They have no life experience.....nothing

[Lionel Albert]

FWIW, Hague's majority in 2001 in his own Yorkshire riding was 16,319, up from 10,051 in 1997 so he does have electoral appeal.

[Patriot]

If Hague were leader would he bring an end to the party's moratorium on criticising the Labour party's record on immigration? Would he introduce a firm Conservative line? A policy?

This subject surfaces yet again in todays Telegraph:

""Recent polls, including the Ipsos Mori political monitor, last month, have put immigration at number one in the public's list of concerns.""

Number one.

If we demonstrate that we don't understand the electorate's concerns we will be rejected as irrelevent.

If we demonstrate that we are aware of those concerns, but treat them as delusional or mistaken, or misguided, or ignore them, we will be rejected as arrogant and patronising.

Either way we will be punished at the polls.

The present policy vacuum on immigration is driven by the belief that the subject contributed to the loss of the last election. IMO that belief is incorrect. The way it was handled, the delivery of the messages, the tone, perhaps, but not the core subject.

This is too important an issue to ignore.