If Blair can't fly, he can at least admit the limitations of the EU

IN the Sea of Apathy that turned out to be the general election of 2001, only the BBC's Jeremy Paxman provided any waves. Watching Paxman in pursuit of Shaun Woodward's butler should be mandatory viewing for any aspirant television commentator. "Well, Shaun Woodward," Paxman began jovially after Woodward's election was confirmed. "Taking your butler to Westminister?"

As Woodward took refuge in the usual sanctimonious drivel about how he was looking forward "very much to representing the people of St Helens " Paxman remained undeterred. "Is your butler voting Labour as well?" he asked. Woodward banged on about how issues of health and education were the reasons for a Labour victory in St Helens South. Paxman bowled a googly. "Oh come along," he said derisively, "it couldn't be anything else other than a Labour member for St Helens South." It was hugely entertaining. And that was it. Not much else for voters of any persuasion to smile about when a record low turnout is the response to the universal franchise.

William Hague is now being eulogised for the dignified way in which he resigned. Hague is an intelligent, articulate man who has considerable charm in person but, as Norman Tebbit put it: "The people took against William". Tebbit would put this down to all sorts of factors, including a lack of coherence in the Tory policy team and an extremely harsh media portrayal of Hague, all of which are probably true. I'd say that any Tory leader with a coterie whose closest advisers included Sebastian Coe and Amanda Platell was bound to hit the wall. But, ultimately the failure had at least as much to do with Hague's appearance - cliched as this view may be.

Appearances do matter, and Hague, though perfectly manly in person, has never been remotely photogenic. The combination of a high baldish pate and a baby face simply lacks plausibility for a future PM.

Appearances mattered long before mass media. In tribal days you couldn't hope to be chieftain without having the agility, physical strength and looks that went with being top dog. Later on, people who wanted to be leaders of imperial nations went to extreme lengths to hide imperfections. Wilhelm II concealed his withered arm and President Franklin Roosevelt surrounded himself with a phalanx of assistants to conceal his braced and crippled legs.

One can't necessarily equate appearance with good looks either. A leader's appearance projects qualities of confidence, strength, probity, maturity, reliability and certainly intelligence. However much of that Hague possessed, and I think he possessed a great deal, his physiognomy does not reflect those qualities.

One can see the obverse. Canada's Pierre Elliott Trudeau was scornful of the public, often spouted policies that went against the grain of the times, but his looks had a Jack-the-Lad quality and throwaway chic that completely seduced Canadians. His very differences made voters feel that he was his own man and his seemingly careless cosmopolitan disregard for their admiration simply increased his attractiveness. He had, to use Edna O'Brien's memorable description of what women like in a man, a bit of "the lurking bastard".

Tony Blair is not conventionally handsome but even before little Leo's timely birth he gave the impression of being a virile man, as did President Clinton. Indeed, what conservative Republicans in America never seemed to understand was that the more they pointed out Bill Clinton's sexual peccadillos, the more popular he would become. It was rather like Palmerston's siring of an illegitmate child in his seventies. Disraeli was asked if this should be made public. "Are you mad?" replied Disraeli. "He'll sweep the country by an even bigger majority than he would otherwise."

Hague seemed after Leo's coming, however unfairly, to be facing something of a virility crisis: one longed for a Duke of Omnium to arrive and precipitate an heir.

No political figure is right for all times and periods. Margaret Thatcher was superb for the period in which she changed the course of the world and indeed, very few human beings have changed the course of a century as much as she did in so narrow a band of time. But resurrected now, even in her youthful state, she could not have the same impact as she did some 16 years ago.

It happens that Blair fits our times and Hague does not. Hague may have fit the times when he made his speech as a 16 year old to rapturous applause, although one Tory grandee present at that 1977 party conference remarked, "He was toe-curlingly awful".

But before one goes into automatic pilot regretting the victory of Blair or comforting oneself by going to the West End to see Feelgood with a prime minister modelled on Blair (known in the play as DL for "Divine Leader" or "Desperately Lightweight" who starts every ghastly banality with "Y' know ") consider: under the present circumstances, it may be a sound decision of the electorate to put Blair back in office.

A federal Europe state is not attractive to me. Still, it seems unlikely that the Conservatives would have been effective in preventing Britain's further entry into it. This is not simply a matter of accepting or rejecting the euro, because each day sees us drift further into the arms of Brussels through Euro law and edicts. The Conservative Party is ambivalent about the issue.

Europe seems to me to be one of those unfortunate strings that has to be played out. It is like a huge pothole in the road: driving into it will jolt the car badly but trying to avoid it by a violent move will do more damage and flip the car. My own view is that a European state will be a failed experiment. Still, in the same way that it took a Republican president, Richard Nixon, to establish relations with China, only a New Labour prime minister can admit the limitations of the European Union. Any Conservative would be accused of pure sabotage.

Meanwhile, tremendous damage is being done. Blair is merrily and purposefully destroying the British nation-state. Westminster is increasingly neutered by European law, the countryside has been abandoned, the House of Lords torn down without any proper notion of what will replace it and the Union diluted by devolution.

I suppose one of Blair's problems is what I call the "chemotherapy factor" in politics, namely, that just like a cancer treatment, it is difficult to destroy malignant cells without destroying healthy ones as well. Even if one agrees on the need to get rid of malignancies in a given society - whether it is doddering idiots in the Lords or cruelty to foxes - the kind of toxic medicine required to do this always injures healthy and vital cells in the same body. Add to this the fact that we are not even sure if Blair's targets are malignant or simply benign tumours and the metaphor is doubly apt.

Though the division of the popular vote was a good deal more ambiguous, in parliamentary terms this election was a landslide for Blair and the greatest second-term victory of any party in British history. That's bad news. If you create a feeling in any government that it has such a full, complete and unopposed endorsement of the population as to have no opposition, then its natural arrogance becomes elephantine.

The final speech of DL in Feelgood concludes with the stirring words: "There's so much more I wanted to say. But sometimes, y' know, you can't exactly do as you want " Let's hope not. The background music to the closing curtain is a pop song called I Believe I Can Fly. Tighten your seat belts. This lot in Downing Street is humming those lyrics even now. It could be quite a flight.