Show Hide image

Laurie Penny: William Hague’s decision to use his wife’s miscarriages to defend himself is unnecessary and offensive

No uterus is public property.

"Well, if you're not gay, why haven't you got that nice girl pregnant yet?" It's the sort of question one expects only from atrocious, senile grandparents and the British press in silly season.

Beset by trollish gossip about his relationship with his former aide Christopher Myers, the Foreign Secretary has felt obliged to make an extremely intimate public announcement about the state of his wife's uterus to satisfy the snarling attack-dogs of the sweltering summer media hiatus. Poor William Hague. Poor Chris Myers. And poor Ffion Hague, whose multiple miscarriages have now been offered to the world as evidence of her husband's integrity and virility.

If there is one lesson we've learned in the past week, amid the breathless coverage of David and Samantha Cameron's new arrival, it's that the reproductive organs of Tory wives are extremely important and deeply indicative of their husbands' capacity to exercise power responsibly and well. After all, if a man doesn't know and control what's going on in his lady's pants, how can he be expected to run a government department?

The link between Mrs Hague's repeated, tragic loss of pregnancy and Mr Hague's heterosexuality is not necessarily straightforward, but it's the closest one can come in a public forum to "I've definitely been sleeping with my wife".

Hague seems to have accepted the rather Orwellian narrative that regular, productive heterosexual intercourse within the confines of marriage is a man's duty to the Tory party, and the press has goaded him into an explicit statement that he's been doing his duty. Will that be enough uncomfortable personal revelation to satisfy the ravenous media machine?

Unfortunately, it's probably exactly what we wanted. The British press seems to nurse an interminable fascination with what Conservatives do in bed together, and the party is clearly anxious to avoid another series of sex scandals like those that beset the Back to Basics years. Only by diverting the media's attention with a highly personal story which nevertheless emphasises that the New Tories are moral, married, faithful and fertile -- not the kinky Conservatives of John Major's premiership -- could Hague and his handlers have hoped to defuse this scandal.

Would it matter if William Hague was a closeted homosexual or bisexual? Yes, it would, simply because it would raise serious questions about the hypocrisy of his previous defence of Section 28. In the light of his extremely revealing statement, however, and in the light of the rumours having originated from that paragon of mature, well-researched online commentary, Guido "Terribly Dangerous" Fawkes, I'd venture to suggest that Hague's claim never to have had a relationship with another man is probably grounded. Yet all this juicy chatter misses the point entirely.

Even if Hague is straighter than a die, it doesn't make his ugly defence of homophobic policies and policymakers one jot more justified. Furthermore, whatever the Foreign Secretary's sexual proclivities, Ffion Hague's miscarriages have no bearing on his ability to do his job responsibly -- the Hagues could be as fertile and faithful as a pair of Catholic rabbits and William Hague would still be a grim prospect in the Foreign Office. And -- most importantly -- no woman's uterus is public property. Not even if they've had the poor taste to marry a Tory minister.

Read Laurie Penny's weekly column in the New Statesman magazine.

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things .

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Theresa May's speech: if immigration is so bad, you've got to leave Europe

The policy is wrong, the politics fairly rancid - and its intended target is unconvinced. 

There's an easy article to write on Theresa May's speech and it goes a lot like this: it was a bankrupt address, both morally and intellectually. It was full of the lazy tricks of a second-tier politician - the use of the phrase "close to zero"  to describe the benefits of immigration is one of those rhetorical devices meaning "actually quite a lot more than zero" - and the policy, such as it was, was dire. 

So, to reiterate: Britain is open for business if that business involves turning a blind-eye to human rights abuses in China in exchange for some direct investment. But if your business is selling higher education - and don't forget that higher education is, as well as a public good one of the country's best exports - or research: thanks, but no thanks, go back where you came from. 

But to do that is to misread May's speech was really about, and its intended audience. In fact, handwringing from the metropolitan right, the liberal left, and New Statesman journalists is very much a good day at the office as far as May is concerned.

The Home Secretary's speech was a desperate gambit by a politician staring retirement in the face. May is 59 - two years older than David Davis when he was defeated by David Cameron - and is sufficiently opposed to George Osborne on social, economic, foreign policy and security issues to make political survival at the top level of an Osborne administration impossible. The battle beween Boris Johnson and Osborne dominates the attention. Younger candidates who can offer a genuine fresh start, like Nicky Morgan, are eating up airtime too. This was a desperate cry for relevance, aimed at Tory MPs - with half an eye on party members, too. 

How did it do on those grounds? The initial response from the parliamentary party is lukewarm at best. "It's not her speeches, it's her record," one quipped: for all the scaremongering, for all the families split apart, and the academics deported, immigration is still going up. She is still, despite five years at the Home Office, the subject of hostility for her "nasty party" speech. 

And the big hole in the speech was noticed just as much by Conservative members and activists as anyone else: if immigration is as awful as May makes out, the only way is to leave the European Union. And unless - or perhaps, untill - May turns her rhetoric into genuine support for a European exit, it will continue to fall flat, not just among the pro-migration left but on the right as well. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.