Question for British DUers: Tell us more about Michael Howard

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Thursday October 30

The night's work done: IDS out, Howard ready to take the crown
· Duncan Smith loses - but is not humiliated
· Rivals stand aside as bandwagon rolls
By Michael White and Patrick Wintour

Michael Howard emerged as the man most likely to be the third Conservative leader in six years last night after Iain Duncan Smith lost his battle to retain the Tory leadership by 90 votes to 75.
Within minutes of the result of a confidence vote being announced after an afternoon ballot at Westminster, David Davis, the most overtly ambitious of the potential candidates, confirmed rumours that he would not stand, instead backing the shadow chancellor as the candidate "best equipped to unify our party".
The statement was the centrepiece of a dramatic hour and a half that saw a series of possible challengers for the Tory leadership withdraw in favour of Mr Howard in what appeared to be choreographed coronation moves.
Despite the appearance of a campaign to impose a single candidate, to the fury of many grassroots Tory activists, it was touch and go to the end. Mr Howard and Mr Davis met for the second time only at 6pm when insiders knew that IDS was out. Most MPs remained in the dark.

Read more.

What are the chances the Tories will soon return to power under Howard should Labour fail to oust Blair?
How would a Howard ministry differ from a Blair ministry?
Who wins and who loses if Howard replaces Blair at Number 10?
Would Howard work more closely with Bush on the so-called war on terror? Or would he assert more British sovereignty?

[number six]

1. Here's the cheat sheet, which i cut and pasted from a poster

at the guardian (apologies!)
Basically he's a right-wing disaster who couldn't even beat a drum.


Michael Howard

As Home Secretary, he believed that the answer to crime was simply to lock more people up: "an increase in the number of criminals in prison leads to a large fall in crime" (POLITICS, MORALITY AND THE NATION STATE lecture, ST. MICHAEL CHURCH, CORNHILL, CITY OF LONDON, 10 January 2003)

Howard was the Minister in Charge of bringing in the Poll Tax in 1988. Even after Thatcher had gone, and after the poll tax riots, he insisted he still believed in the policy (July 1991)
Howard was the Minister who brought in Clause 28 of the Local
Government Act banning the "promotion" of homosexuality (March 1988)
Howard voted in favour of anti-abortion campaigner David Alton's Bill to reduce access to abortion (January 1988)

As Environment Secretary, Howard allowed power generators to keep their pollution levels secret (Nov 1992)
Howard the hypocrite - he said very clearly that "I will never stand again for the leadership of the Conservative Party" less than a year ago in November 2002 (BBC News Online - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2503737.stm)

Howard makes George Bush look like an anti-war protestor. In November 1998, Howard criticised Blair and then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook for not acting fast enough to launch air strikes against Iraq. On the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Howard said that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton should attack without warning and try to remove Saddam Hussein from office.

Howard opposed the introduction of the Human Rights Act.
According to an ICM poll for the Guardian in October 2003, 26% of people are LESS likely to vote Tory with Michael Howard as the leader. (Guardian 21 Oct 2003)

[T_i_B]

2. Michael Howard?

He was an authoritarian home secretary in the Major government, much like his "new" labour successors. His motto at the time was something along the lines of "if you don't want the time, don't do the crime."

He is very much part of the Thatcherite right wing of the party, he has an unusual record of being loyal (well unusual for a tory anyway). He was famously decribed as "having something of the night about him" by Ann Widdecombe. The Widdibeast served under him as a junior minister and her attacks on him pretty much scuppered his leadership bid in 1997. The image still lasts to this day. Today's Mirror for instance protrayed him as a vampire on the front page.

As PM I suspect that Howard would govern on similar lines to $hrubya. I am not expecting a great deal of change from the policies of Dimwit-Smith if truth be known. The difference is that Howard won't have his arse kicked by Blair in at PMQ's as much as Dimwit-Smith did and he won't be as much of a nonentity as IDS. It always made me laugh when certain Blarites tried to portray IDS as a genuine threat to Blair as that much was always patently false.

He will be a tougher opponent for Blair then the last two tory leaders but I still don't think that he has what it takes to dislodge Blair from office at all. And I also have my doubts about whether or not he can lead the tories out of their current white, upper class, elderly, home counties ghetto.

[AP]

4. Ann Widdecombe is, by far and away, one of the most replusive politicians

I've ever seen in terms of the total package. Her outward physical appearance is perfect representation of her policies.

Once the BBC did a show with her. They went shopping for hats and dresses with her. It was both funny and distrubing.

[legin]

3. Head of a think-tank too

http://www.atlanticpartnership.com/

Open any newspaper, listen to any broadcast, and you realise that Europe and North America are increasingly at odds. On a range of issues - trade, defence, the environment, for example, partnership is in danger of degenerating into rivalry and even hostility.

Yet the Atlantic Partnership between Europe and North America has been one of the greatest forces for good in the world. If it breaks down that would be bad, not only for Europe and North American, but for the world as a whole.

Our objective is to prevent a breech and to maintain and encourage Atlantic Partnership. To achieve it we aim to identify and encourage a group of people, on both sides of the Atlantic, who will think, talk and write about these issues, with the specific objective of sustaining the partnership. That is why we have set up the Atlantic Partnership.

------------------------
Nothing stand out awful, but mildly annoying, and the fact that he has his own think-tank is annoying too.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Thank you

I also caught the thrad from The Scotsman where about 23% are less likely to vote Tory with Howard as leader.

Perhaps that isn't such a good thing. Under those circumstance, Blair can pretty well do what he wants without any real fear of the opposition. And he always seems to be up to no good.

[tinnypriv]

6. Tories have NO CHANCE

To get a majority of 1, they need a 10.7% (-ish) swing. New Labour in 1997 got 10.2%, which was a landslide.

[T_i_B]

7. How the Liberal Democrats can stuff Howard

The Liberal Democrats have a reasonable chance of taking Michael Howard's parliamentary seat of Folkestone & Hythe. The more seats the Liberal Democrats have the better at the moment if you ask me. Here's a BBC article showing a few other top tories that Lib Dems can spank as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3228669.stm

The Liberal Democrats believe they could oust Tory leadership hopeful Michael Howard from his Commons seat at the next election, a party spokesman has said. And he said that if Mr Howard's bid to become leader of the Tory Party is successful it will only fuel Lib Dem efforts to remove him as MP for Folkestone and Hythe.

At the last election Mr Howard's majority fell from 6,332 to 5,907.

Liberal Democrat chief executive Chris Rennard said: "The election of Michael Howard as Conservative Party leader makes it even more likely that the Liberal Democrats will take the seat at the next election. "He will be undermined by having to defend the pre-1997 Conservative Party as well as the current Conservative Party."

Lord Rennard said his party needed only one in three or four Labour votes to win in Folkestone, without taking a single Conservative vote.

[AP]

8. I'm sure they'll find a safe seat for Howard somewhere else.

[WingNOT]

9. "Safe Tory seat" is becoming an oxmoron like "military intelligence"!

The Libdems have their eyes on a few Tory scalps in the general election 2005/6 (whenever...). They're on an upwards trend while the Tories are heading down.

The RW press in the UK are desparate to talk up Howard & the Tories chances - they hate backing loosers.

The Tory party in the country (as I've said on many occasions) is dying - literally as it's members and activists head off into old peoples' homes and senility.

I doubt the people talking about the need for an effective opposition were saying the same during Thatcher's reign of terror in the 80's...

[T_i_B]

15. ""Safe Tory seat" is becoming an oxmoron like "military intelligence"!"

Problem is, I live in one of the f**kers! :wow: Down here in the capitalists monarchy of Essex we do have a few of the buggers.

Maldon & East Chelmsford. Whose MP is John Wittingdale, Tory shadow culture secretary and a bona fide idiot who was very loyal to Dimwit-Smith, voted for him in 2001 and has endorsed Howard this time around.

"new" labour won't win this seat at the next election if you ask me. To many Labour people are very pissed off with Blair, the right-wingers seem happy enough voting for an openly right wing party and the Liberal Democrats are still in third place, a situation which I will most likely be voting to remedy if I am still round here come election time.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

10. Yeah, the Lib-Dems have a decapitation strategy

for some top tories. Go Charlie! When these people target a seat, they're dangerous.

[LibLabUK]

11. My take..

Michael Howard came to speak to at my university (Kent at Canterbury) in 1995, he lasted less than 5 minutes, tomatoes and eggs forced him from the lecture theatre.

He's slimey.

"What are the chances the Tories will soon return to power under Howard should Labour fail to oust Blair?"

I can't see Labour ousting Blair before the next election. After Blair, Brown will most likely carry on in the same vein anyway.

The tories have no prospect of regaining power at the next election, they're unelectable even with a new front man.

"How would a Howard ministry differ from a Blair ministry?"

He's a Thatcherite, Blair isn't.

I wouldn't be suprised if he tried to privatise the NHS, infact I'd be suprised if he didn't try.

"Who wins and who loses if Howard replaces Blair at Number 10?"

Who wins? Corporations, company directors and foreign investors.

Who loses? Everyone else.

"Would Howard work more closely with Bush on the so-called war on terror? Or would he assert more British sovereignty?"

He'd work closely with Bush whilst it served his needs.

I don't think he worries about British sovereignty in regards the USA, it is more important that he assert BritSov over the EU.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

12. Here's Roy Hattersley's take. It's encouraging (even from a tub of lard!)

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,9321,1076495,00.html

[WingNOT]

13. In the future, everyone will be Conservative Party leader for 15 minutes.

OK so that's plaguarised from a comment I saw on the BBC website - but loved it all the same...! Who would have thought it - modern ideas and Tories... wedded together :-)

BTW - Lord B... in case people think you're being cruel to Roy - he once couldn't make an appearance on "Have I Got News for You"... so they substituted a tub of lard - think Paul Merton STILL won (with the tub of lard) as well...

[Screaming Lord Byron]

14. Yep. Thanks WingNOT. I'm actually quite a fan of Roy.

Can't resist the Lard though!

[T_i_B]

16. Roy Hattersley?

Not only do I tend to agree with the guy, but he's a fellow Sheffield Wednesday supporter too, so he obviously has superb taste. :-)

Here's one of his best articles about how "new" labour misleads in debate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1051721,00.html

When in doubt or difficulty, the prime minister always completes a diversion from the facts by traducing his critics. So he told David Frost that newspapers have often reported the Hutton proceedings inaccurately. No examples were given. For a moment, I felt proud, not because Tony Blair had worked for me in his leftwing days, but because it is people like me on whom he has honed his skill at misrepresentation. The finest flowering of that talent came during his visit to this year's meeting of the Trades Union Congress when his speech rejected "the fantasy of an extreme leftwing government". He was about to face criticisms of foundation hospitals, top-up fees and a two-tier workforce. The implication that only Bolsheviks have reservations about those policies illustrates how flimsy the rational arguments in their favour are.

It has to be admitted that defenders of the Project make up in affrontery what they lack in probity. Yesterday Tony Blair, who came into parliament supporting nuclear disarmament, withdrawal from the European Community and a massive extension of public ownership, announced that he had "always been on the modernising edge of the party". Perhaps Dr John Reid will soon claim that he has been Labour all his life. After his statement last week that critics of the government "come together under the banner FWW - Fed-up With Winning", we can only assume that he will say whatever is convenient at the moment.

The desire to remain in permanent opposition is not the most damaging smear that is spread across the government's critics. Any Labour party member who has doubts about the Project is dismissed as outdated. For years, hoping that rationality would break through, I suggested that ideas should be judged on their merits, not on their age. Then I realised that the more intelligent members of the government knew that to be true, but found it inconvenient. The argument against PFI is not that everything should be publicly owned or that we should follow the precedent of 1945, but that it is a wasteful and expensive affectation.

Last week John Reid complained that the government's critics were dogmatists, not ideologues. It is the belief that private enterprise and the market produce efficiency that displays indefensible dogma. And the notion that competition, which the government wants to extend to hospitals and schools, is the answer to the problems of performance and accountability, is hardly modern. New Labour has moved through space not time - to the right, not to the future.