The Sketch: Howard takes a leaf out of Paxman's book
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The good news and the bad news is the same: Tony Blair will win the student finance vote, survive the Hutton report, rise above any leadership challenge, lead his party into the next election and win a majority of 110 seats. This is not a prediction, it's a fact. On this occasion, the Sketch speaks infallibly. Go forth and make your fortune with the bookmaker of your choice.
Now, where were we? Michael Howard has learnt a lesson - or at least taken a lead - from Jeremy Paxman. Remember, when Home Secretary, Mr Howard achieved the feat of not answering the same question in 14 different ways? Now Mr Howard has asked the Prime Minister a question a dozen times and received even less of an answer than custom expects.
It must also be said, the original was better: Mr Howard lacks the timing, the pacing and the melancholy contempt which has worked so well for Mr Paxman, and Mr Blair lacks the fluent profusion of Mr Howard. The Prime Minister's answer is woodenly the same. Mr Howard asks: "Do you stand by what you have said?" Mr Blair replies: "It's too soon to say."
"Why did you authorise the naming of Dr Kelly?"
"I stand by what I've said," he says. Or, more mendaciously: "I've already answered that question" (this is true only, as students of prime ministerial linguistics will know, in the sense of not answering it at all).
When asked whether he would lead the debate on the Hutton judgement, Mr Blair began: "The details will be decided later ..." and this provoked such indignation that he went on: "I have no intention of doing anything other than leading the case for the Government." That could mean anything. It might be an anagram.
If Lord Hutton does find that Mr Blair authorised the naming of Dr Kelly (Mr Blair's reactions to the charge include: "That is completely untrue" and "Emphatically not") he has given us to believe he will resign.
I found myself considering a post-Blair parliament until I asked myself why. Because he said so! Laugh? That isn't the word for it. He gave us to believe Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological warheads attached to rockets that could be fired at London within 45 minutes and that didn't exactly come to pass either.
George Foulkes was called, for reasons that are unclear. Maybe his name was on a Whips' list given to the Speaker. Mr Foulkes, you may have seen, looks like a fat goblin from the Noddy books. Though fired from some insignificant frontbench position some years ago ,he remains revoltingly loyal to the Government. He said that any respect felt for the family of Dr Kelly should prevent us asking legitimate questions about his contacts with journalists.
Looking at my notes, I see I've written: "Cant!"
I'm pretty sure that's what I wrote, it's a bit of a scribble.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments