Michael Howard to stand down

CCHQ has just confirmed that Michael Howard will tell his Folkestone & Hythe Conservative Association that he will be stepping down at the next General Election as the local MP.  In a brief statement the Tory leader says:

"By the time of the next election I will have been a Member of Parliament for twenty six years.  I have been very privileged to serve as a Government Minister for twelve years and in the Shadow Cabinet for six years but the time has now come to move on."

Highlights of his career include...

• As Secretary of State for the Environment he had some responsibility for the community charge, oversight of water privatisation and led steps towards international action against global warming at the Rio summit.
• As Secretary of State for Employment he helped to negotiate John Major's opt-out from the Social Chapter at Maastricht.
• The prison works policy (for me his greatest achievement) which contributed to an 18%  reduction in crime - after years of remorseless increases.
• As Conservative leader his dog-whistle strategy led the Conservative Party to gains of more than 30 MPs at the 2005 General Election but may have reinforced the party's image as uncaring.
• In his last few months as Tory leader he was unsuccessful in his bid to strip members of their vote in the leadership election but he did position David Cameron to be his successor.

I am sure all ConservativeHome readers wish Michael and Sandra Howard a happy retirement from parliamentary life.

Comments

[Nicholas Slide]

I have a lot of admiration for Michael Howard, I'm sure F&H will miss him. Wonder who will be chosen to succeed him there.

Anyone know why Michael Howard abstained in the Education vote this week?

[Editor]

I don't Nicholas but it would not have been for any disagreement with Cameron's line. He is scrupulously loyal to his successor.

[Tom Ainsworth]

Two student friends of mine who nationally had much more sympathy for the Lib Dems postal voted for Michael at the last election because he is such a good constituency MP. He will be a hard act to follow.

[john Skinner]

A good chap. Along with Enoch and Norman he would have been a fine PM if things had been different. As usual, Widdecombe couldn't resist an attention-seeking remark, but her "something of the night" utterance did for her as well as him.

[James Maskell]

A hard earned retirement it must be said. Best wishes to him. I hope he will be at hand for the Conservatives in an ambasadorial role or in helping out with one of the Policy Groups which would be a great help.

[Richard]

While I think Michael Howard has been unfairly demonised I never approved of his abolition of the common law right to silence.

Good luck to him anyhow.

[John Travis]

Yes, a well earned retirement from the Commons. Like others I hope he finds a way to continue to contribute to the Conservative cause. Lord Chancellor in Cameron's first cabinet has already been touted in the press. He would be perfect for such a role.

[Mark Fulford]

I’m trying to work out whether “A good chap. Along with Enoch and Norman he would have been a fine PM” is said with sarcasm. Michael Howard may have many qualities but I’m sure he was a vote loser nationally – he was too tarnished by his roles in the discredited last Conservative government. I hope that his retirement is exactly that. We can’t have “changed” if we simultaneously post the old guard to key positions.

[TT]

Howards End?

Mark, I agree. Howard may have had many admirable qualities, but objective examination of his 'achievements' notes:

a) attempts to eliminate democracy from the Party's leadership process
b) attempts to diminish of the 'power' of (and incentive for) party membership
c) attempts to undermine constitutional statues, not least Richard's note on the abolition of the right to silence
d) fervent support for membership of the EPP 'on pain of deselection' (ask T Villiers and D Hannan)
e) his association with some of the most unpopular legislation from the Thatcher and Major eras... too many to list individually.

Mark is right. A changed party demands changed faces. Lord Howard is fine, but not a future Lord Chancellor with a seat in Cameron's first Cabinet, please.

[Frank Young]

Howard took over a party that was at its most desolate and gave us purpose, determination and confidence. For that I will always be grateful to him. He deserves our admiration and thanks.

Reading his statement it almost sounds as if he will retire from frontline politics so I’d be surprised if he accepted a front bench job in the Lords. A peerage seems a near certainty and well deserved.

[Ted]

Michael Howard did great service to this party - and like all men in public life he made some mistakes. He stabilised us and provided the foundation for the party to move forward.

Comparing the two Howards - the Oz & the Taff - is instructive though. Very simiar politically (Oz has also limited civil liberties, been authoritarian etc.) both seemed to be yesterdays men before leading their parties (though John had been leader once before). Where they differ is that John Howard would have taken defeat and continued to fight and perhaps more importantly that Michael Howard the person always seemed hidden behing Michael Howard the politician, whereas with John seems more natural.

Perhaps it was the remainders of the class system - perhaps Howard (and Major, Heath) had to adopt a persona to face up to the old tory aristocracy and advance politically which came across badly on screen. Major's best moment, mocked but effective, was on the soap box when he came alive.

A bit more street fighting and a little less gravitas might have served Micheal Howard better but he left his party better than when he took over, and his constituents well served. He will be remembered with more affection by his party than Tony Blair will by his.

[TT]

I have an excellent idea...

Why not give Folkstone & Hythe to Howard Flight?

Not only would this be an ironic justice, the retention of 'Howard' would assist F&H with the transition.

:o)

[Editor]

I proposed the very same thing on Guido Fawkes' site last weeek, TT!

[TT]

Dammit!

It wasn't plagiarism - honest! - I don't do Guido.

I genuinely thought, for the first time in my life, that I had had an original moment of inspiration. There's obviously nothing new under the sun...

[Frank Young]

That would be very funny.

[Sean Fear]

Michael Howard made his share of mistakes, and was wrong to try and deprive us of our right to vote in the leadership election.

But he showed enormous grit and resilience in extremely difficult circumstances, and certainly left the party in better shape than when he took over; not only did we pick up 33 new seats, we also saw plenty of Labour majorities being cut from the thousands to the hundreds. So, I think he deserves our good wishes on retirement.

[TT]

"not only did we pick up 33 new seats, we also saw plenty of Labour majorities being cut from the thousands to the hundreds."

Sean, was not this largely down to an unpopular war and the consequent fracturing of the Lab/Lab alliances that were forged to 'keep the Tories out'. Whoever had led the party in 2005 would have benefitted from 'events'.

It is a fact that our popular vote in 2005 was no improvement on our 2001 position. Howard contributed next to nothing, so please forgive me if I struggle to jump on the bandwagon of fond tribute to sing his praises.

[sbjme19]

I have a lot of respect for Michael Howard who really imposed discipline and put up a really tough and energetic fight at the election. Unfortunately he had an image problem, I think, with the electorate at large, which stopped him being a winner.

[JamesB]

Michael Howard is rightfully praised by many in this comment section.

While it is true that he only advanced our popular vote share slightly, I can't help but think how much it would have receded had Mr Duncan-Smith stayed on.

Mr Howard transformed the party from near meltdown to a fighting force in just 18 months. Unfortunately, that's not enough time to create an election-winning vision for Britain. Had he been leader in 1997 things could have been very different!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"I’m trying to work out whether “A good chap. Along with Enoch and Norman he would have been a fine PM” is said with sarcasm. Michael Howard may have many qualities but I’m sure he was a vote loser nationally – he was too tarnished by his roles in the discredited last Conservative government. I hope that his retirement is exactly that. We can’t have “changed” if we simultaneously post the old guard to key positions."

Unlike you to be so negative Mark. There's one thing I'd expect you to thank Michael Howard for - David Davis isn't/wasn't leader.

As it is, I'm grateful to Michael Howard for bringing about a temporary end to party infighting and getting the media to take us a bit more seriously than they had previously.

"Why not give Folkstone & Hythe to Howard Flight?"

Er, how about the fact that he's a proven liability who single-handedly halted the momentum we had built up at the beginning of the last election campaign?

"While it is true that he only advanced our popular vote share slightly, I can't help but think how much it would have receded had Mr Duncan-Smith stayed on."

The party was actually making slow but steady progress under Iain Duncan Smith, who was trying to bring about real 'modernisation' (i.e. 21st century solutions to 21st century problems) in the party, as opposed to the rather superficial 'modernisation' favoured by the Portillistas.

Poll ratings were good (and consistently improving) through the later months of the IDS leadership, but unfortunately, he was fatally undermined by three things - a lack of credibility with the media, open sniping by Michael Portillo and chums, constant rumours of leadership plotting by David Davis.

[Rob Largan]

"Why not give Folkstone & Hythe to Howard Flight?"

While I think Howard Flight was harshly treated, Nick Herbet was a far better man to have on the green benches. I dont see what Flight brings to the parliamentary Conservative Party to be honest. We would be much better off getting much younger, innovitive thinking, candidates.

[Graham D'Amiral]

I have enormous respect for Michael Howard,As party leader he introduced a sense of disipline to the Conservative party and gave us confidence in ourselves. Michael Howard spoke with real authority from the despatch box and commanded much respect. After the general election though perhaps was howard's most significant achievment he understood the changes the Conservative party had to make to win but the piercing honesty to realise he was not the man to make those changes.