William Hague has been visiting Australia in the last couple of days, alongside half of the National Security Council. But you would not know it. Except for a few comments in the blogosphere, there has been little write-up of the visit in the newspapers.
Korski thinks it has something to do with our lack of interest in world events, but as we know, MSM journalists are spoon fed. There is a news "grid" that Number Ten creates, which determines what the stories are going to be. Like good little boys and girls, the lobby accepts the hand out and gets out the scissors and paste. Hague's visit is just another example of Hague himself being kept out of the media spotlight.
I predicted that he would fade away and finally resign. I wrongly guessed January, but the strategy with a man who has attracted all the wrong attention seems to be a clever one; just don't talk about him. The message has clearly gone out to all those sympathetic to the Government and of course all the gay editors and bloggers who spiked the Chris Myers story before it became apparent that Myers was the second young, under qualified gay man appointed by Hague, to share an expenses paid hotel room with him. The message is, keep Hague under wraps for a bit longer in order for the gay story to die down.
Why is this important? It is important because it tells us something about the way the media is far too close to the government and far too malleable. It tells us that being gay, secretly or not, affords you a certain amount of expected protection from public scrutiny and a lot more toleration of hypocrisy. It also tells us that despite the liberal narrative that loves to tell us that it is ok to be gay, the government has also decided that it is better to be invisible. The only difference here is that had Hague been sharing his bijou boutique bedrooms with women of Myers' age, and with a similar lack of experience and qualifications, the press would be all over him. It is interesting to note that Kelvin MacKenzie commented: If it turns out Christopher Myers is gay it could be a real problem for Mr Hague.
This is just another example of the supine media going along with the politically correct narrative. I am all for Hague having a private life and I do not give a stuff if he is gay. What is sinister is the establishment conspiracy to "protect" him. It began with the resignation of Mr Myers on the fairly unconvincing premise that he did not want to be in the media spotlight. My guess is that it was Hague who did not want to be in the media spotlight and Myers was sacrificed in order to kill further speculation. My guess is that the MSM has had a clear message from Andy Coulson not to do Hague stories. My next guess is that since the only people who publicly cried outrage about the story originally were, Andrew Pierce, Iain Dale and Alan Duncan, the story has some truth in it. My guess is that as soon as it became known that Myers was gay, the MSM spiked the story.
I think that the private lives of people should be private, but in this case there was a possible conflict between the requirements of high public office and the use of that public office for the personal advancement of favoured individuals without due process. (Questions about Myers' meteoric rise from campaign driver to SpAd were never answered, and in particular his entry into a civil service post and his lack of qualifications and experience. Likewise, the other individual who fell into favour with Hague). The press simply killed it stone dead. It is incomprehensible that they should pursue a story and drop it just as the crucial evidence was about to be made public unless as Kelvin MacKenzie suggested, it was about to become a problem.
If anyone out there knows more than I do, please get in touch, particularly if you know for sure that this story has any currency.
UPDATE: The writing appears to be on the wall
UPDATE 2: This post has aroused interest from The House of Commons, no less. And yes, I know who you are. Perhaps you might like to enlighten me on the chances of Hague lasting more than a couple of months longer?