Methinks the faux indignation a little overdone, Stephen. Not up to your usual high standards, I'm afraid.

As for the seven Tory MPs you are talking about, I'm sure that I could guess the names of at least four. They're presumably the usual irredentist cabal who worked overtime to destabilise Duncan-Smith (of whom I was no fan) and who are now playing the same games with Howard after extravagantly protesting their loyalty for a minimum period of time. I'm not surprised they cheered Blair: that's what they have done for years. The "united" Tory Party post-Howard was always a charade. If these people think Blair is such a wonderful thing, then they should live up to their principles and join his Party. They won't of course because they are much more use to Downing Street where they are.

And please don't treat us to this guff about the Government's tuition fees proposal being a market-oriented mechanism which Tories should support. This argument is totally untenable. It was completely demolished by Anatole Kaletsky and then by Simon Jenkins in the "Times". Neither of them could remotely be described as died-in-the-wool supporters of Michael Howard.

Michael, he said seven Conservatives, not Conservative MPs.

Exactly. Not one was an MP. And as it happens, they're not at all "the usual irredentist cabal". Far from it - nornal, solid, calm types.

The performance was graceless and ill-judged, but that's not enough to damn the man entirely. He has been a remarkably skilfull leader in his short time in charge and certainly has my vote at the next election.

This is a deserved triumph for Blair and an equally deserved catastrophe for the BBC. Enjoy.

Look again, Stephen, Michael Howard is still right. He has been drawing a distinction between the facts that Blair did tell journalists on the airplane to Japan that he had nothing to do with Kelly's name becoming public, yet he chaired the meeting where a strategy was agreed for his name becomig known to lobby journalists.

Hutton, by his own admission, did not consider Blair's statement to journalists on the airplane. Therefore, his conclusion that the Government did nothing underhand in Kelly's name becoming known is of no consequence to Howard's point.

I think MH's performance at PMQ's today was embarrasing and pretty bloody crappy but overall I think he has been good so far and you can't completely put him down over one bad day.

I was disapointed with Michael Howard's performance in the House today.I would very much like to vote Conservative, but I find myself continually unconvinced by the leadership. Howard grinning madly, refusing to apologise despite the Hutton findings, what next ? A Dean scream?

I think complaining that the Leader of the Opposition is not being nice to the government is a bit lame really. Was he meant to stand up and congratulate Blair on how well it had turned out? For what it's worth I think the government is basically correct in the Gilligan affair, but I am amazed that Hutton let them off with the naming of Dr Kelly.

Also Tony Blair is hardly averse to cynicism and opportunism himself.

Stephen's right. Howard was a disgrace, he has forgotten what is important in this debate and aligned himself with the Michael Meechers and Robin Cooks of this world. He should have apologised, raised valid points about wider aspects of intelligence (but god knows not another inquiry, I'm sure the spooks are re-visiting this issue in any case) and then shut up. Does Howard think trying for the anti-war Blair-lied conspiracy vote will help his party?

The BBC seem to think one resignation is the end of it, they have moved onto the "Why the war started" meme and "Hutton doesn't understand journalism" before the ink is dry on Hutton. Personally, I think heads should roll all the way down to Humphries.

Anthony, Michael Howard certainly hasn't forgotten what's important in this debate: abuse of power by the Government and its information machine and abuse of its privileged position by the BBC. Hutton focussed on the latter but came up with some highly subjective conclusions on the former which have a certain old-world charm ......but could have been ghost-written by Charlie Falconer and Cherie Blair. This report is out of the same stable as the Franks Report in 1983 and the left has always considered that a whitewash.

Whta's more, it's perfectly consistent to criticise Hutton while endorsing the decision to go to war in Iraq....which I do. It's the old old story: the end doesn't justify the means but tell that to Tony Blair and his cheerleaders.

It's absolutely pathetic. Blair's entire political strategy is based around painting the Tories as 'extreme right wingers' who he can ridicule at length as 'not offering a proper opposition'. What he (and his supporters) cannot stand is when they decide they do not wish to fulfill this stereotype and attack him from positions that are in tune with the British public. Since 'Tories = extreme rightwingers' has now become to them almost axiomatic they think that by definition they are now being 'opportunistic' (incidentally it was pretty pathetic as well seeing Charles Kennedy stand up yesterday, have his usual swipe at Howard, and then virtually make exactly the same points and ask exactly the same questions somewhat less elegantly).
They barely like it much better when the Tories support them - somehow rewriting history to suggest the main reason so many Labour backbenchers were compelled to rebel was due to the Tories refusal to oppose his Iraq policy ('Little Sir Echo'). They really should find some gratitude over what Iain Duncan Smith did for him - to suggest now that Tory support invalidates any subsequent questioning of Government policy is an affront to our democracy.

Full disclosure: as a Labour councillor I’m hardly going to be sympathetic to Howard, but even so Stephen is right. Howard was unable to reconcile himself to the conclusions that Hutton came to and so searched for the half paragraph here or there where Hutton raised the possibility of criticising Blair and the government. These were the wrong tactics built on an expectation of a more damning set of conclusions and, as others have said, lacked grace.

To those that suggest that he shouldn’t be judged on this one day; fair enough, I suppose, but it was a big test and I can’t see this going down as his Robin Cook and the Arms to Iraq moment. Can you?

Howard has embarassed himself over this. I have talked about it with four people of broadly Conservative leaning political views, and all think his (and IDS's) approach has been sling mud, hope it sticks.

All think Howard should have made a short statement, slammed the Beeb, briefly admitted to over-enthusiasm in his earlier attacks, then sat down and shut up.

But, in the words of Vic Reeves: "He wouldn't let it lie!"

This comes on top of his position on student fees, and for that matter on restoring earnings linkage to state pensions.

The Conservatives continue to make the mistake they have made ever since their defeat in 1997: they believe that a Labour government is an affront to the proper order of things, Blair is some sort of duplicitous monster, the people must have been fooled to vote them in, and attacks on the integrity of Blair and his ministers are the key to undermining public support.

Whether or not this is true is beside the point. As politics It has not worked and is unlikely too. Without coherent, consistent and well thought out policies - not opportunistic populism - to engage Labour weakness on education, local government, over-regulation, crime and judicial reform etc etc the Conservatives will fail.
Howard appeared to promise an end to this; he has blown his first opportunities to follow through.

(Gollum the ultra-Tory retires muttering: "He did lie! He did, he did. We hates him, we hates him so much! We should rule, my preciousss! Nassty, horrid New Labour...spin doctorsss...Tony's croniessss..."

How shocking, an Opposition Leader who actually opposes! Whatever will they think of next?

Blair has been right and courageous in standing firm agaisnt the Saddam appeasers in the BBC and his own party.

That does not mean he can do no wrong, that he and Alistair Campbell and did not deserve more criticism from Hutton, or that his denials that he had anything to do with outing of Kelly was more than a little disingenuous.

There is a general perception that Blair is too slick by half, and that he doesn't listen.

Michael Howard has shown he is more in touch with popular opinion than the pointy heads in the Wesminster village. He has rightly tapped into that perception, and I doubt he will lose any sympathy with the public at alarge over his response.

beach bikini handjobb @X@ skillfull handjobangels @X@ handjob club britney @X@ filmy z grubasami @X@ wibratorem erotyka pijane @X@ bzykane ruchanko @X@ ejuculation tera bond @X@ squirt clips @X@ big squirt preview @X@ big natural boob asian @X@ little tits pictures @X@ big boob group sex @X@ rozjebane cipa foto @X@ sexi trailer @X@ jebanie w aucie picture @X@ vaseline handjob pics @X@ sloppy cockstroking gif @X@ hanjob adult foto @X@ perwersyjne lize podwojnie @X@ lampucery wyrywanie rozjebane @X@ nago cipki @X@

captain stabbin allison* captain stabbin amy* mature pussy sucking* mature pussy swinger* donna busty brown* double d bigguns* alinternall jennifer* alinternall movies* www ass worship* felicity assparade* goth ffm* goth gangbang*