h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: William Hague - To What Extent was he Unsuccessful? - A3414296
Author: Deano - U211726

Fairly interesting topic... good topic for discussion!

I suppose it could be to his credit that he didn't make the party any more unelectable. But when you start with nothing, it can't really get any worse.

Equally, he was personally unelectable. You just couldn't see him as PM. The image didn't fit. That's the whole probably with the Tories at the moment, I guess. The party still thinks of itself as the natural party of government, but for most of the country the image doesn't fit.

The Tories have lost the last two elections, and they won't win the one that's coming up next either. They are simply not believable anymore. They may say that they are coming up with many bold and interesting policies, but no one is listening anymore, and it will still be a good while before they do, should it ever happen.

Anyway, now that I've deposited that rant on this thread, I must agree that the topic is a good discussion starter. I'm not sure it's in the right structure for an Edited entry yet though. It need a few headers to break it up. It could also be a bit more balanced. Hague did achive the odd thing or two.

For example, an set up a framework whereby any future leader of the party would have to be elected by the whole party, not just the parliamentarians, as had previously been the case. It makes the party more democratic internally. It was the way the IDS became leader of the party. Howard, on the other hand, managed to circumvent the whole process by arranging the matter so that no one would stand against him. So the party didn't even get to make a choice. Well, it was a nice idea while it lasted.


Geggs

thanks for the feedback Geggs. I'm off to India tonight so I will make some changes when I get back in January. Much appreciate the input.

I agree the entry is quite biased... when researching it was quite hard to find "good" thing he had done. However, I totally agree with what you have mentioned and will add them in... and subheadings etc. too - I couldn't be bothered to do them first time in any case!

Thanks again

Deano

"just when things probably couldn’t get worse ..."

You're speaking in the past tense. Things obviously *did* get worse. I'd recommend "just when it looked as if things couldn’t get (any) worse ...".

(I really don't like those asterisks, but how else can we show emphasis in plain text? Yes, yes, I know: syntax. Ah, well ... .)

TRiG.

May I just point out that h2g2 already has no particular shortage of threads in which one can attack the Tories with gay abandon, lest this PR thread turn into a thread in their image?

I think what this Entry principally needs is more context. First, what Hague did before becoming leader; that conference speech from years ago is (in)famous. Second, more on what the government was doing while Hague was Leader of the Opposition; one can hardly judge a contest while knowing what only one side was doing.

This Entry presently being pretty short, it necessarily rides on quite a few suppressed premises, e.g. in paragraph 4 the (not unquestionable) assumption that being in tune with the media entails being in tune with the public. (And personally I don't trust anyone's ability to tell Blair's 'real emotion and pain' from his acting.) There are also a lot of assumptions about what readers know, e.g. it's assumed that the reader knows what 'Section 28' refers to.

I like the bones and look forward to seeing some more flesh.

My first thought was the same as RFJS; more flesh. You've got a good way of explaining everything, nice style, but you just need some context for the piece.

Also > Tories were again whitewashed - not true; a whitewash is when you win no seats at all. They did poorly, but whitewash is the wrong word.

Surely 'whitewash' means a cover-up?

It is that as well but it can also mean when someone scores all the points available e.g. snooker player winning 9-0 is a whitewash, but winning 9-1 wouldn't be. Dull, huh?

interesting

the title just doesnt fit with the content for me
Williams Hague's failures or
William Hague: Tory Leader 1997-2001(if you want to make the peice more biographical)or even
The Conservartives:1997-2001
would be better,

he wasnt very good with the public but he was the better debater at pmq's, miles better than IDS and if you judge him by that,he was successful.

I agree you should include his past( e.g welsh secretary, blah blah blah) but also include what hes done after resigning.

Maybe he wasn't a successful leader but maybe he was a much better polictical adviser(to micheal howard, part of the "three wise men"including ids and major) and he has a television career (guest presenting on hae i got news for you) and hes a newspaper columnist in NOTW, with the ridiculous strapline(or tagline whateva you call em) "He knows...He's been there" which reportedly earns him £90000 a year.


but nonetheless rose to power>>but nevertheless he became leader(power is a bit of a strong word for a tory leader, not sure about never/none)

at the start you leave fresh start in lower case but l8r change to Fresh Start

who the hell is Dennis Lilly, needs explaining(and Alan Duncan while you're at it)

advise>>>advice

how in tune Blair was to the public(good, but sounds clumsy to me, having said that, i cant think how it could be improved)

content>>contend

rest looks ok

hope you enjoy your holiday

SuperSam

hope you en

sorry that post was full of mistakes(the shame)

forgot to preview it

SuperSam

I agree with most of what's been said, and I do think you have a good basis for an entry here. If you want to change the title to one of the broader ones suggested by SuperSam, I'm sure you could get help from other researchers as it's quite a lot to do. Otherwise, I think if you want to keep the basic premise you have now, you should call it "William Hague: How Successful was he?" rather than "how unssuccesful". Good job though, look forward to seeing this again.

thanks for the feedback. the original entry is basically my answer to an AS-Level Government and Politics question from last month, so i just put the question as the title of the entry. I have now changed it - I agree it was probably not the best choice.

There is quite a lot to be said I agree about what Labour were up to at the same time, but I can't help feeling that this would end up being a general history of British politics during Lab's 1st term...

Yes, agreed, but I feel personally that you need to mention Labour as it gives a bit of context and would help explain why he was unsuccessful.

I think it will be a great entry if you address the points raised above; just out of interest, did you get a good grade?

Nicely consise, me like

however, the subheader for the introduction paragragh isn't needed. They prefer it if you start with a paragrapgh rather than a heading.

tjm

Some of the typos spotted by SuperSam are still in the entry. It's pretty close to ready in my opinion; you going to finish it off Deano?

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

congrats

Nice one!

Congratulations