FIVE years ago, I appeared on a television show with a leading Conservative who had arrived at the studio from one of Jeffrey Archer's infamous Krug and shepherd's pie parties.

My fellow guest had clearly enjoyed himself, and he was full of the joys of being a friend of Jeffrey's.

Archer was never really satisfied by the money his various ventures brought him, but he craved power and influence, and that night in 1996 he must have been so delighted to see a leading Conservative crowing about him on television.

Despite all Archer's character flaws, he had managed to infiltrate the inner circle of the establishment - particularly the Tory establishment. By the time they realised his true nature, it was too late - they could have got rid of him, but it would have been too embarrassing for them.

And, as my fellow guest showed, they really rather liked him. He was good company, told great stories, threw great parties and raised great amounts of money. Even now, the Margaret Thatchers, Bernard Inghams and John Majors of the Tory Party haven't turned against him. They probably still like him, and just dismiss his latest bout of trouble as Jeffrey being Jeffrey. Maybe that's why none of them have publicly condemned him.

Although I am no apologist for Archer - I was suspicious back in 1986 when he walked down the Old Bailey steps with a fake wounded look on his face - I am surprised by how many accusers have now crawled out of the woodwork.

If the offences they accuse him of are so serious, why didn't they dare to tackle him with the evidence five or ten years ago. Perhaps, having been so taken in by him, they now want to salve their own consciences. But to the public, it is beginning to look as if they are kicking a man when he's down. And, although the public has little sympathy for Archer, they don't like that.

Archer himself is like a rubber ball. He will bounce back again. It'll take longer than usual, but he'll try to redeem himself or at least get his praises sung on television. And we the public will again have to decide whether fact has been blurred with fiction and it's just the champagne that is talking.

WILLIAM Hague was another victim of Jeffrey Archer. "He is a candidate of integrity and probity," he said in 1999. Within a year, Mr Hague was admitting that that was a bad misjudgement.

The Tories, though, fascinate me. Somehow they've managed to land themselves with two leadership candidates that they don't really want. They look like England sports managers who say that to halt another dreadful run of defeats they'll turn to youth and give them a long run to bed themselves into a team in time for the World Cup after next. And then they bring back the old guard of Tony Adams or Graeme Hick.

Ken Clarke is 61 and, if he loses the next election, will be into his Seventies by the time he gets a shot at power. Iain Duncan Smith is 48 and, if he loses the next election, there will be plenty of young whippersnappers at the back of a man nearing 60 as he approaches his second election. One of those young whippersnappers, I predict, will be Mr Hague. He's still only 40, and one of the reasons he lost the last election was his lack of years and experience.

But he will have gained experience from his defeat and by the time of the election after next he will be a mature 50-year-old. His next move will show whether he fancies being leader again. If he retires to the backbenches, it will be clear he is looking at life away from politics. But if he takes a place in the Shadow Cabinet, he will show he believes he has a future.

He can be leader again, possibly even Prime Minister, if he wants to.

Published: 26/07/2001