`IT'S RUNNING OUT OF CONTROL

Bruce Anderson hears William Hague

denounce the government over the Dome, and avoid backing Archer for mayor

WILLIAM Hague thinks that the govern- ment is making a mess of the Millennium Dome, that its welfare reforms could well turn out to be thoughtless, cynical and timid, and that Europe needs a dose of economic freedom. He also refused to endorse anybody as Conservative candi- date for mayor of London.

He made these points to me when I interviewed him on Monday. I began by asking him why it was that despite the gov- ernment's problems the Conservative party's standing in the opinion polls was lower than it had been at the general elec- tion.

`It is going to take time to change peo- ple's perceptions of the Conservative party. Over the past few years, many peo- ple had turned against us. By 1 May, they were determined to change the govern- ment. They did not really care how they changed the government, but they were determined to vote us out. So Mr Blair started out with all sorts of advantages. Having refused to listen to us, the elec- torate was happy to listen to him. It is no use ignoring that mood. We have to respond to it, by changing and reinvigorat- ing the Conservative party so that it can respond to new challenges, and I have done so in two ways.

`I have instituted a fundamental reform and a fundamental democratisation. I not only want to see a dramatic increase in Conservative party membership; I want to ensure that every party member is involved as never before in policy-making and in all other matters. I am determined to enfran- chise the Tory party. `But I am equally determined to ensure that we stick to our principles. I am not interested in leading a party that takes its ?pinions and its priorities only from opin- ion polls and focus groups. Tony Blair has turned the Labour party into a dictatorship in which principles are irrelevant and power is paramount. We will respond by reasserting our principles and opening up Our power structures.'

All right, I said, but was it really neces- sary to reopen the European issue which had done such damage to John Major? in politics, you have to stand by your principles. I happen to believe that we should be in Europe but not ruled by Europe. I am a positive European: I have always believed that Europe offered Britain a whole range of opportunities. I am excited by the prospect of a genuine free market embracing the entire Euro- pean continent, and buttressing free insti- tutions. I am the first to acknowledge the historic achievement of the European Community in enabling the near-shattered nations of continental Western Europe to co-operate in peace and to prosper in freedom. I also believe that the entire European Union must respond to the great new moral challenge of assisting the former Soviet empire to achieve stability, democracy and prosperity.

`But I did not come into politics to sign away the rights of this country without a backward glance, and I am going to stick up for what I believe in. I understand that there are some people in my party who take a different view, just as some mem- bers of Margaret Thatcher's party took a different view from her on economic poli- cy in the late Seventies and early Eighties — the so-called 'Wets'. She proved then, as I intend to prove now, that you don't unite a party by seeking a lowest common denominator of blandness and fudge. You unite a party by giving it clear, principled leadership. And if there was ever an issue which requires clarity and principles, it is Europe.

`I am no Little Englander. I spent a very enjoyable year at a French business school, and I'll always be grateful that I had part of my education in the villages and bars around Fontainebleau, with fellow students of about 25 nationalities. So I am happy to acknowledge my debt to Europe, but as a political leader, it is also my responsibility to warn my fellow Europeans when things are going wrong. I am not a little Englan- der — but I won't be a little European either. The world economy is an increas- ingly competitive environment, and any European who thinks that Asia's recent problems can be used as an excuse to justi- fy complacency is misreading history. A regulated, protectionist, fortress Europe, which tries to erect walls against the rest of the world, would only succeed in keeping its own people poor and unemployed. It would be a betrayal of the European ideal, and of the peoples of Europe.

`Europe cannot work unless Europeans are working. I know very well that, if English politicians express their anxieties about the present drift of European policy, they will be accused of being anti-Euro- pean. But we Tories should have the confi- dence to respond by saying that, on the contrary, it is we who are the true pro- Europeans: we want to save Europe from the terrible social consequences of appal- lingly high youth unemployment and an increasing lack of competitiveness. We believe that Europe has a lot to learn from Britain's achievements under 18 years of Conservative government. I will be happy to tell European political leaders that I am as good a European as they are, but that the way forward for Europe is a healthy dose of economic freedom.'

I asked whether we could ever imagine Prime Minister Hague taking Britain into a single currency.

`I am not going to use the word "never" about a single currency, but before ever agreeing I would have to be persuaded not only that it was an economic success, but that it would continue to be an economic success in the long term. I would also want to ensure that it would not involve the transfer of our powers over taxation and spending to pan-European authorities. Now it could take many years before we could judge all that; after all, the new European notes and coins will not even be circulating until 2002. So it will be several years after that before we could begin to form a conclusion about the single curren- cy. I will not say "never", but I will say that I have grave reservations, and that it will take a long time before we in this country would know whether it was right and safe to join.'

Long before that happens, I continued, there will probably be a mayor of London. Whom did he want to see as the Tory can- didate?

`It is very important that the mayor of London is chosen by the people of Lon- don, and that the Conservative candidate is chosen by all the members of the Con- servative party in London. So I am not going to single out anybody to be my approved — or not approved — candi- date. I genuinely want it to be up to the members, and I'm not going to turn the whole business into a loyalty test by saying that they must endorse my chosen candi- date. I would also challenge all the other parties to choose their candidates on the same basis. If we're going to select our candidate in that way, why shouldn't Labour and the Liberals do likewise?'

So would he be happy with Jeffrey Archer as mayor of London?

`I will be happy with the candidate the Conservative members choose. I'm not going to be drawn into saying which indi- viduals I'm happy with or unhappy with. I have a great regard for many of those who have been talked about as candidates and I will not try to discourage our members from making their choice. It is up to them.'

I then switched to welfare: as the Labour government was now tackling issues which its predecessor had largely neglected for 18 years, it was surely enti- tled to Tory support.

`It is not true that the Conservative gov- ernment failed to tackle welfare reform. The issue was addressed, especially in our last term when Peter Lilley was social security secretary, and he met with noth- ing but opposition from the Labour party. But I am prepared to forget all about that. If Labour did come up with proposals to reform welfare in the national interest, I would be the first to support them. At the moment, however, they are failing the first test. I am not opposed to saving money by eliminating waste and fraud — but you cannot have a proper reform of welfare unless you take a firm stand on principle, which this government is incapable of doing.

`There is a clear principle which ought to be enunciated: that the main aim of wel- fare policy must be to reinforce indepen- dence, choice and dignity. We need to move on from the welfare state to the idea of a welfare society, in which as many peo- ple as possible are encouraged to be inde- pendent — that is what most people want — while those in need should be helped, generously. But Labour is not interested in a welfare society. They are trying to make independence harder by raiding pension funds and taxing savings. They are also proposing to hit at some of the neediest in society, by diverting money that now goes to the disabled to their local authorities instead. Mr Blair decided that Islington council was not fit to educate his children; if he was a disabled person living in Isling- ton, would he be happy for the council to control a large amount of his current income?

`If Labour came up with a genuine, prin- cipled programme of welfare reform, then I would support it, even though elements of it were unpopular. But if their proposals turn out to have no basis in principle and to be thoughtless, cynical and timid we will expose them accordingly.' Welfare obviously involves the family, I continued: there was a vigorous nod oppo- site. But isn't there a problem? Surely the `back to basics' fiasco tainted the issue as far as Tories are concerned.

I believe that we can readdress the whole question with success and credibility. I intend to develop a consistent set of poli- cies based on clear beliefs about the impor- tance of marriage and the family. Now some will no doubt object that they thought I wanted a tolerant party which did not make judgments about divergent life-styles — but the two are not incompatible.

`I am not going to preach sermons about what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. The Conservative party must be genuinely tolerant and allow people to make their own choices about the life they live. That is what freedom is all about.

`At the same time, I see in my con- stituency surgery every week how many of this country's social problems stem from the breakdown of traditional family life. I believe that the Conservative party has a duty to come forward with policies that encourage and sustain the family. And by the family I mean a mother and father married to each other, bringing up their own children in their home. The Conserva- tive party I lead will be on the side of the family that works hard, saves hard, tries to be independent of the state and believes in this country.'

You mentioned examples, I said, but isn't there a problem? You don't know when one of your backbenchers, or even front-benchers, will be caught in the wrong bed. So isn't it dangerous to talk about examples?

`No, because I am not saying that every- one has to live in the same way. I've made it clear apropos Robin Cook that, though it is not an example which I would like to set, I am not saying that somebody who has a broken marriage has to leave public office. Mind you, I wish that people had treated Conservative politicians as fairly as we now seek to treat Labour politicians.'

On the subject of personal examples, I continued, how much of a role will your wife Ffion have?

`She is not a politician; she does not want to be a politician, though I am sure that she would be a good one. But our marriage is separate from politics: she will proceed with her own career, and it is very healthy that she should — healthy for me as well. She does intend to take an interest in what her husband is doing, but she is not setting herself up as a political figure in her own right. Our marriage has nothing to do with politics.'

And your own family plans? `They are gradual. One day we would like to have little Hagues, but that is not imminent.'

Would it not be an asset to have some- one in the family with less hair than him- self, even for a brief period, I enquired? Mr Hague and his press secretary vied with one another in laughter. 'A very brief period, I fear: a matter of a few weeks at most.'

As regards bald domes, I went on, isn't the Millennium Project looking rather threadbare: shouldn't it be scrapped?

`No. The last government decided that the millennium should be celebrated in a grand and memorable way, and formed plans to do so. The trouble is that those plans have now been abandoned. Costs are running out of control, partly because the new government has so far failed to secure any significant private sector input, which was crucial to our scheme. Not only that: with less than two years to go, none of those who are involved with the Millen- nium Project seems to have any idea what it all means.

`But let us be clear where the responsi- bility for all this lies. There has been a huge failure of management by this gov- ernment, and unless the whole thing is to end in chaos the ministers responsible must get a grip. They must ensure that the costs are contained and that they can explain to everyone in a few simple sen- tences what the Millennium Project means.'

Could he explain in a few simple sen- tences what the Hague project means?

`My most basic belief is in liberty and freedom. I believe that it is the duty of Conservatives to uphold freedom even when it is not popular. This morning, for instance, I was defending fox-hunting on the radio. I insisted that it was not just a conservation issue, and that I was deter- mined to defend the countryside and country sports because I was determined to vindicate the right to freedom. Freedom is the animating force behind all my politi- cal beliefs.'

What about Tony Blair: what was the animating force behind his beliefs?

`I have known Tony Blair for a long time; we are constituency neighbours. I wouldn't say that we have ever been bud- dies, though I have always had respect for him and I always get along with him. But I don't think he believes in anything and I have never thought that he believed in anything. He has turned the Labour party into his own personal electoral machine, and that is how he intends to use it in future.'

But can you beat him, I concluded?

`Of course I can. In the short term, he has been very successful in the way that he has transformed the Labour party, but it can't last. I am convinced that, over time, admiration and fascination will turn, first to disillusion and finally to contempt. The moment that happens, Tony Blair will be lost. That is why I am convinced that we will win the next election.'