ANOTHER VOICE

A danger lurking for Mr Hague

MATTHEW PARRIS

Even at the best-regulated coronations, accidents can happen. William Hague has promised a 'special conference' at which he will submit himself to the ordinary mem- bers of his party for endorsement as leader. Unless the exercise is to be hollow — in which case it will invite mockery — it could become a genuine test of the party's opin- ion. This is most unwise.

We do not know the party's opinion. It might be the wrong opinion. What is Hague up to? No doubt it seemed a smart thing to say at the time, but has he thought this through? Has anyone? I suppose the new Tory leader had it in mind to emulate Tony Blair's love-fest over Clause 4. If so, he may have chosen the wrong precedent.

In 1981 Michael Foot, just elected leader by Labour MPs, proposed that an electoral college endorse him at a special conference at Wembley. This took on a life of its own. The conference turned ugly; platform speakers were barracked cruelly from the floor, and David Owen, Shirley Williams and the electorate saw a face of Labour which defined the party for years to follow.

It was what we now like to call a defining moment. A day later, the Gang of Four issued their `Limehouse Declaration' and founded the SDP. Thus an occasion which party members hoped to present as a rally — the beginning of the road back to gov- ernment — caused instead a rout, begin- ning the road into a 15-year wilderness.

`I remember walking to my car thinking, "there it is, it's all over", and I decided to go down with the ship,' recalled Roy Hat- tersley. 'The strange death of Labour Eng- land seemed to be upon us.'

The press were looking for trouble. The British people had recently chased Labour angrily out of office and the newspapers, still hostile to the opposition, were looking for ways to lampoon extremists and fan the flames of mutiny. Journalists failed to write the conference up as the new leader hoped. Could the Tories' 1997 offer parallels with Labour's 1981?

Mr Hague would prefer for his text a dif- ferent lesson: Book of Labour, Gospel according to Tony, chapter 2, 1995, verses relating to Clause 4. But the Clause 4 con- sultation was a very different affair. Neither Mr Blair's goal nor his certainty of achiev- ing it was in question. The new Labour leader was guided by his reforming pillars of cloud by day and fire by night, and we all vastly approved. It is too early, with Mr

Hague, for fire or cloud, and we are all a bit undecided.

Labour's 'Road to the Manifesto' refer- endum, which came next, was hollow, a PR ploy. From the Tories such blancmange would have been laughed to scorn, but Labour was able to rely on a bandwagon of goodwill from the press, and Mr Blair got away with it. Can the Tories rely on the same goodwill?

We know nothing, yet, about the manner in which Mr Hague seeks to arrange his own coronation. 'They can back me or sack me,' he said at Central Office last week, `because without the endorsement of mem- bers in the constituencies we will not be able to embark on a challenge so great as the one that faces us.'

Well, there's a simple way to organise that endorsement: through a referendum of the whole party by secret ballot. Spin doc- tors have been muttering that this is not what is intended. It would not, they say, be possible. I have yet to hear a convincing explanation why. Though no central mem- bership list yet exists, most local Tory asso- ciations have lists, and they could get these up to date during the summer. Those which failed would forfeit the right to participate until they had complied. The exercise could be undertaken by post and telephone, and it should be easy to ensure that the ballot was secret.

Instead, Central Office talks about a `special conference'. On its timing and characteristics they are stupidly vague, and I suspect they have not the least idea what to do. There is a whiff of panic.

The panic is appropriate. Sceptics are sure to ask, why have this conference at all? If the voting is to be by secret ballot — as everyone will insist — why do it in a big hall? You could hardly mount such an occasion credibly at the regular party con- ference in October, or it would not be 'spe- cial'. And how are what Mr Hague called `the members in the constituencies' to be part of a conference unless they are all invited? And how could they all come? And why should they? What's wrong with the Royal Mail?

There were three nationwide Tory bal- lots during the leadership contest at West- minster. Association chairmen alone were consulted, but chairmen of many associa- tions did ballot their members, and others consulted. Mine in West Derbyshire ballot- ed and the results (as elsewhere) showed Kenneth Clarke way ahead. Could it be that recollection which prompts Central Office to cast around for ideas for a 'con- ference' next time?

Whether put to a special conference or any other electorate, the question will have to be simple: in Hague's own words, 'Back me or sack me.' When John Major demanded as much in 1995 the Tory Right took the not unreasonable view that the test should be real. Hague cannot now object if elements on the Tory Left feel likewise. There is unlikely to be a stalking horse this time, and the available answers to the Hague question will have to be yes or no. But `er . . yes' (an unconvincing win) remains an option.

The Hague team will do their best to avert it. To vote no will be represented to party members as an unthinkable act of treachery — and to the press as a real option which members were free to choose. Central Office and the whips will not (though they should) be neutral, and Mr Hague will gamble on the propensity of the rank and file to do as they are told, where- upon he will declare that he is his party's unfettered choice. The press will sneer.

He will probably get away with it. But there are leadership kings over the water who know that even a question with only one permissible answer can still be signifi- cant. 'Er . . . yes' could prove the Tories' way of saying no. That could undermine the very point this crackpot device of a special conference is intended to underpin.

The question will not, after all, be asked in a vacuum. By then Mr Hague will have enlightened his party on his Cabinet test over the single currency, and on his attitude to developed assemblies in Scotland and Wales. Both questions are vital, both could split the party. I do hope we shall not have a constantly shifting fudge on either.

Matthew Parris is parliamentary slcetchwriter and columnist of the Times.