Even in the world of spin created by them, politicians like us to believe that "what you see is what you get". Refreshing, then, that an un-spun Mr William Hague should yesterday prove so true to himself.
The plain-speaking Yorkshire man has taken defeat on the chin and promptly announced he was making way for someone else to start the process of Tory recovery all over again. And who could blame him?
Though he would never admit it the past four years must, at least at times, have been appalling. During the campaign, the Economist concluded that the Tories simply had the wrong policies and the wrong leader.
This was kindly, certainly in comparison to pretty constant personal vilification elsewhere of a kind previously inflicted on Mr Neil Kinnock: the references to his apparently strange "foetus-like" appearance, the mocking of his accent, the sniping at his wife and her non-speaking part in the election.
How to smile when repeatedly told on television that people simply don't like you? Or when reading that they think you're not a fully-formed member of the human race? And then, once crushed by electoral rejection, to be lavished with praise for remarkable resilience in face of such adversity? "The hypocrisy would have been too much for him," said one Tory source who concluded early on that failure to at least puncture Mr Blair's bubble would see Mr Hague make a sudden exit.
Yet in their moment of defeat a number of his senior colleagues made a concerted effort to persuade Mr Hague to stay. Nor, it is clear, were they simply going through the motions or observing good form.
They had, it seems, really convinced themselves that the opinion polls were wrong. Not, perhaps, to an extent that allowed them to contemplate victory - but sufficient, surely, to cut Mr Blair down to size and put them back in contention next time.
As the scale of Labour's second landslide became apparent the reality appears to have dawned on some that changing the leader might prove the easy bit.
Lord Cranborne said Mr Hague would be doing his party "a great service" should he stay at least a while as the party reflected on the meaning of its defeat.
Hours before, with only the exit polls to guide him, Mr Michael Portillo had been altogether more fulsome, protesting his desire that Mr Hague should remain as leader "whatever" happened. That sentiment was echoed by Mr Kenneth Clarke's prediction that "William will carry on in his job".
Those who recall the installation of the telephone lines in the putative campaign headquarters for his undeclared leadership bid against Mr John Major may take Mr Portillo's protestations with a heavy pinch of salt.
However, sources close to him are unsure if, aged 48, he wants to assume the leadership, knowing that he has but a slim chance of moving into Downing Street in four or five years' time. There is a question mark over his wife's enthusiasm.
Then there is the complicating factor of his revelations about his early private life. Previously thought to be Lady Thatcher's anointed, Mr Por tillo knows only too well that many Tories simply can't abide his Mark II agenda for an inclusive Conservative Party, tolerant of all people regardless of class, colour or sexual orientation.
And the right - many of whom will prefer Mr Iain Duncan Smith or Ms Ann Widde combe - will have had their suspicions increased by suggestions that Mr Clarke might actually endorse Mr Portillo as Tory leader.
Mr Clarke himself would still be a popular choice. However, it is difficult to see how the uncompromising advocate of British membership could himself win the leadership of a still more Eurosceptic party. So - in their determination to stop their party pushing further down a right-wing tunnel - Mr Clarke might agree to join Mr Portillo's front bench in return for freedom to campaign for a Yes vote come the expected referendum.