What's Guido Fawkes trying to say about William Hague? Photo credit: Drown

Is Hague’s embarrassment entirely Fleet Street’s fault?

Foreign Secretary William Hague has been forced to publicly deny allegations that he conducted an affair with his special advisor Christopher Myers. Myers, 25, resigned following a “deeply personal” statement from Hague, which included details that Hague and his wife had suffered multiple miscarriages in their attempts to have children. In defence of his decision to speak-out on such personal terms, Hague said, “My wife and I felt we had had enough of the circulation of false allegations, particularly on the internet.”

The implication that Hague had been forced to divulge details about his personal life because of ill-treatment by the press was picked up by Michael White on the Guardian blog. “What a shaming day for Fleet Street,” proclaimed White. White was unimpressed with the coverage from media titles such as Radio 4 and the Financial Times. “It’s the high-minded broadsheet version of tabloid humbug and wouldn’t have happened like this even a few years ago,” he said.

The rumour (as noted by the Periscope Post at the time) allegedly began with Guido Fawkes, the nom de ‘net of Paul Staines, online. Staines, dipping a toe in actual journalism, filed several questions with Hague’s department under the Freedom of Information legislation, demanding to know whether the new special advisor had ever accompanied the Foreign Secretary on any overnight international trips. The Daily Mirror, therefore, reserved its condemnation exclusively for “the internet” where the tale spread. “All those who peddle unfounded, hurtful rumours deserve the criticism coming their way and should be held to account,” said the Mirror (apparently straight-faced.)

But beyond the responsibility of the rumour mill that is the Internet, the Hague situation raises other questions – including whether the sexuality of our politicians should or still matters. Julian Glover in the Guardian lamented that it still seemed to. “Gay and lesbian politicians … are now quite routinely expected to make a declaration of their sexuality, as straight ones, by and large, do not. It is as if speaking out is becoming a compulsory contribution to the cause, and intrusion into privacy not gossip but therapy.” But Alice Thomson argued in the Times conversely that “Sex is so last century”, and does not matter to the electorate anymore. She reminded us, “[I]n this coalition Government, Chris Huhne’s decision to leave his wife of 26 years for a former Top of the Pops press officer has had no effect on his prospects as Energy Secretary. Crispin Blunt has carried on as Prisons Minister, although he recently announced that he is quitting his marriage because he is gay … William Hague has had to issue a statement denying any relationship with his special adviser only because his department is paying the man’s salary.”

That Hague felt obliged to speak up for personal reasons, or because Myers was on the government payroll, are two theories amongst a bigger theme of skepticism. “If there’s nothing to hide, why should either [Hague or Myers] respond so dramatically to the barbs of online gossip columnist Guido Fawkes?” wondered the Daily Mail. Any gossipers suggesting that Hague should exploit his wife’s miscarriages for  his own political benefit were in for a scolding from Alex Massie at the Spectator: “Good grief. I’m amazed that so many people not married to either William of Ffion Hague are so well-placed to rule on the intimate details of their relationship and decide what is proper and seemly for them to talk about in public.”

David Cameron has expressed his support for Hague but even so, some still speculate that the story is in fact true. Sholto Byrnes in the New Statesman saw nothing wrong with one aspect of it: “After all, given the drastic cuts the government is making, perhaps we should even be encouraging ministers to share rooms with their aides — two to a bed, three to a bed, as many as can fit. Should we not enjoin them to endure a little discomfort in the noble cause of parsimony?”

Byrne’s comment could have served to remind us of upcoming drastic cuts, the plans for which will begin next week when George Osborne holds his first Star Chamber session. If the Hague affair were meant to be a distraction then surely this is what we are meant to be diverted from? But there could be no diversion large enough to pull attention away from dramatic public service cuts. Could there? As we said when we first heard the distant machinations of Guido’s rumour mill, “We at The Periscope Post try not to, as a rule, print tiddle-taddle or innuendo. But that doesn’t stop others from doing so.”