Peter Briffa, leaping to the defence 1 of soon-to-be-anointed Tory leader, Michael Howard, offers us a revisionist interpretation of Jeremy Paxman’s infamous skewering of Howard in a television interview. Paxman asked Howard fourteen times whether or not he’d instructed Derek Lewis, the head of the prison service to suspend the governor of Parkhurst prison; Howard refused fourteen times to give a straight answer. For Briffa, this is evidence of Howard’s basic honesty.
for what it’s worth, Howard at least didn’t lie. If it had been Blair, say, or Hattersley, he’d have just denied it and the whole thing would have been forgotten. Howard’s remembered for not dissembling. Not such a terrible thing, really. The Tories are about to choose a teller of uncomfortable truths as their leader.
Briffa seems to have completely forgotten why the sacking was controversial in the first place. Howard had explicitly denied in the House of Commons, in October 1995, that he’d instructed Lewis to suspend the governor. Unfortunately, his denial appears not to have been true, as Lewis and Ann Widdecombe, who was Howard’s junior minister at the time, were later to reveal. It’s worth quoting at length from Widdecombe’s speech to the House of Commons (available in Hansard), which scotched Howard’s leadership chances in the last leadership election but one.
I shall now turn to the censure debate in October 1995. My right hon. and learned Friend (i.e. Michael Howard) said “On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition made three allegations:”. He went on to list them and said that the first one was “that I personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately;” He listed the other allegations, and said: “Each and every one of the allegations is untrue.”—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 524.] In other words, he categorically denied in the House that he had personally told Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended immediately.
Some hon. Members may have watched “Newsnight” on Tuesday 13 May, in which my right hon. and learned Friend was far less categoric. He said of Mr. Lewis: “I gave him the benefit of my opinion in strong language.” I can tell the House that the “Newsnight” version is the correct one.
There is ample documentary evidence that my right hon. and learned Friend did indeed personally tell Mr. Lewis that the governor of Parkhurst should be suspended. The atmosphere at that meeting, attested to in the documents, is of fury and confrontation. I was told in a personal note by one of those present: “This was the subject of the worst disagreement. The Home Secretary wanted suspension, Derek Lewis adamantly refused.”
And even more to the point.
In the debate, my right hon. and learned Friend was asked by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin): “Mr. Lewis says that he was given a deadline by the right hon. and learned Gentleman by which to agree to the removal ofMr. Marriott, after which he would be overruled. Is that true?” My right hon. and learned Friend replied categorically: “There was no question of overruling the director general”.—[Official Report, 19 October 1995; Vol.264, c. 520.]
Oh, yes, there was. As he rather belatedly admitted last week, and as documentary evidence within the Department shows, after Mr. Lewis had been asked to reconsider his decision, my right hon. and learned Friend took advice on whether he could instruct Derek Lewis to suspend Mr. Marriott—this bearing in mind that he had told the House that he had not personally told Mr. Lewis that Marriott should be suspended.
This explains why Howard was at pains to avoid answering Paxman’s question. He’d previously made a statement to the House of Commons which, to put it kindly, was somewhat economical with the truth. He’d then been caught out. But if he acknowledged to Paxman that he had indeed instructed Lewis to suspend the governor of Parkhurst, he would effectively be admitting that he’d previously misled the House of Commons.
Now, Ann Widdecombe has Parliamentary privilege, and I don’t, so I’m going to forebear from commenting directly on Mr. Howard’s past record as a “teller of uncomfortable truths.” But I do invite you to draw your own conclusions, on the basis of the Parliamentary record, and of the interview itself, which I recommend you watch for entertainment value, if nothing else.
1 Link bloggered: scroll down
Now, Ann Widdecombe has Parliamentary privilege, and I don’t, so I’m going to forebear from commenting directly on Mr. Howard’s past record as a “teller of uncomfortable truths.”
You mean you’re worried about a known liar suing you for calling him a liar? I know the defamation laws in England are completely insane, but this is a bit over the top isn’t it?
A little cautious, I admit, but litigiousness does seem to be on the rise in the blogosphere. And Tory politicians are notoriously prone to legal action …
Fair enough. Until about 10 years ago it was common practice in Australia for politicians shortly before or after retiring to supplement their income with defamation suits. The High Court eventually stopped it by deciding the clauses in the constitution saying there had to be elections implied a right to relatively free speech about the people standing in those elections. That’s probably lousy jurisprudence, but it was good public policy and it seems to have stopped many of these suits, and meant we can feel a little freer spouting off about them.
On the other hand we haven’t yet figured out how to make Australian decisions binding on English courts, and Michael Howard is approaching retirement, so caution is perhaps advisable.
Henry,
Thanks so much for this essay. I’d been out of touch on UK politics since…uhm, I don’t care to say how long I’ve been out of touch but I was pretty certain there was no way in hell IDS was going to be PM. Do you really think Howard’s got a chance?
Henry,
Thanks so much for this essay. I’d been out of touch on UK politics since…uhm, I don’t care to say how long I’ve been out of touch but I was pretty certain there was no way in hell IDS was going to be PM. Do you really think Howard’s got a chance?
Even if he had not previously lied about his actions… how does circumlocution in the service of avoiding a question amount to “telling uncomfortable truth”?
And Henry, in the US “on the up-and-up” is idiom for “honest” — does it mean “on the rise” in Britain?
Jeremy - probably means the same thing everywhere - I was posting at 1.30am - have changed the wording. Thanks.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review