Dani Garavelli: Ffion is the real victim

Published on Wednesday 23 June 2010 19:20

THERE's only one thing more repellent than the thought of Paul Staines - aka Guido Fawkes - drip-feeding one poisonous rumour after another into the blogosphere in the hopes of destroying a man's career, and that's the thought of William Hague laying bare his wife's miscarriages in the hopes of salvaging one.

As if, in this day and age, anyone would see his ability to successfully impregnate Ffion as proof he wasn't gay; as if the violation of her privacy could in any way redress the violation of his.

I understand the Foreign Secretary was under pressure. No-one should have to put up with years of innuendo about their sexuality, sniggers about the authenticity of their marriage and speculation that it's about to collapse, particularly when they are trying to cope with the loss of an unborn baby.

Perhaps Hague - worn down by it all - really did believe he had no other choice than to place intimate and painful details of their life together on public display. Perhaps Ffion went along with it, seeing the statement he released as a means to stop the prurient gossip once and for all. But - if so - she was badly advised, as all sharing information about your private life will ever do is legitimise attempts to scrutinise it further.

Now, the gossip that so upset Hague has moved from obscure political websites to the front pages of national newspapers, Chris Myers has lost his dignity and his job as special adviser and open season has been declared on the Hagues' marriage, with every gesture, every smile analysed for signs of disharmony.

As lapses of judgment go, issuing that statement sure beats sharing a twin room with Myers during an election campaign. Because that's what this is all about, you know - Hague's judgment, or lack of it. That's the reason we public need to know about his sleeping arrangements. Because if he were having sex with an aide, it would constitute an abuse of public funds and he would have to resign.

It's not about homophobia, oh no. Even though the post that pushed Hague over the edge was merely one more rumour in a whispering campaign about his sexuality which has spanned 20 years (ever since he hired openly gay adviser Barnaby Towns in the early nineties); even though it came days after the publication of a year-old photograph of the pair wearing sunglasses and very much at ease in each other's company; even though the blog contains the telling line: "One witness told Guido that the room-sharing couple's body language at breakfast was eye-opening", the gay angle was irrelevant.Just as it was when it emerged Chief Treasury Secretary David Laws had been claiming MPs' expenses for rooms rented from his male lover.

I suppose if he really were having a gay affair, Hague would be open to accusations of hypocrisy, given he once said: "It is the institution of marriage, the lifelong and exclusive commitment of one man and one woman to each other, which provides the best hope for stable family life and for the upbringing of children."

But not a shred of evidence has been produced. The story broke because bloggers and journalists are now colluding so as to give currency to unsubstantiated gossip which - not so long ago - would have been regarded as unprintable.

Take the story about Gordon Brown on anti-depressants. Rumours about Brown's mental health and his use of mood enhancers had been circulating the House of Commons tea room for some time. But it was blogger John Ward, who, based on nothing more than his suspicion, as a depressive himself, that a list of foods Brown was not allowed to eat suggested he was taking Mono Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs), who first put it into print.

Though the evidence Ward had to support his rumour-mongering was circumstantial, Andrew Marr felt its circulation on the internet was enough to justify his raising it with the prime minister on his Sunday morning programme. Thus Brown was put in the ridiculous position of having to deny an allegation for which there was no real basis in the first place.

What I don't understand is why public figures are putting up with it. If Hague felt he was being unjustly accused, why couldn't he have copied Marr - whose own private life fell prey to Guido's blog - and taken out an injunction to stop newspapers speculating on it? Instead, he seems to have meekly accepted that politicians need to modify innocent behaviour to take account of public prurience.

What Hague certainly should not have done was to hand journalists his wife's suffering on a plate. Indeed the fact that Ffion, who has never sought public office and who, it is said, shuns interviews and treasures her privacy above all things, should find her miscarriages the subject of water cooler chit chat, breakfast shows and poignant newspaper features is the saddest aspect of this whole, sorry affair. Although by treating his wife's pain so casually, Hague might yet prove his point. If their marriage survives his insensitivity, I suppose it truly is as strong as he claims.