Michael Howard humiliates John Bercow in front of MPs

The London Evening Standard reports Michael Howard's unprecedented response to John Bercow’s attack on Conservative immigration policy, and criticism of Liam Fox from Ian Taylor MP. Mr Taylor had said of Dr Fox, a former GP: "Liam Fox is somebody I would hesitate to go and have medical appointment with let alone a political appointment."

Mrs Howard once told a TV programme that her husband didn't so much have a short fuse as no fuse. The absence of a fuse was apparent in his harsh sacking of Howard Flight before the election. At a meeting of Conservative MPs a furious Mr Howard demanded an end to public bloodletting. He is reported to have said "I feel so strongly about this I'm going to name names. Specifically Ian Taylor's criticisms of a Shadow Cabinet colleague and John Bercow's description of our immigration policy as 'repellent'".

It is certainly an interesting paradox that modernisers like John Bercow who argue for more measured criticism of Labour's failings can get so vivid in their description of internal failings.

Comments

[Peter]

Bercow is becoming like Ken Clarke in one respect: he only seems to get any publicity when he attacks his own side, which in itself is perhaps an incentive to do it more.

[Editor]

This morning's Independent reports a friend of Ian Taylor's reaction to Mr Howard's remarks: "Ian took it in his stride. It's pretty odd of Howard who called Blair a liar to be complaining about Ian in this way. Howard called for unity but this is a pretty strange way of showing it."

[James Hellyer]

If this "friend" is right when he said "Ian took it in his stride. It's pretty odd of Howard who called Blair a liar to be complaining about Ian in this way," then Ian Taylor is really missing the point.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of Michael Howard calling the Prime Minister a liar, surely they can see that there's a difference between attacking Labour and attacking their own side.

"Howard called for unity but this is a pretty strange way of showing it."

In this, however, he has a point. Michael Howard has started a leadership contest with no clear rules or timetable. The leading contendors on the front bench may not be able to shoot off because of their position, but no such restriction is on their "supporters".

[Simon C]

Ian Taylor himself was reported somewhere this morning as saying that his remarks were probably a little over the top.

This is about consistent brand values (something modernisers often stress is important). If we are going to engage the public by debating in a grown-up way, using measured rather than shrill or strident language, that must begin at home. If we cannot debate amongst ourselves in a friendly way without acrimonious language, what chance is there of managing it when we turn to the business of explaining our vision for the country?

[Edward]

Howard is damn right here. Its this sort of sniping and public backstabbing that caused us so many problems in the 90s it is also now starting in the Labour party (huzzah). As with Howard Flight MH is laying down the law and that is absolutely right.