If Michael Howard can disown the past, so can we all

The Tory party’s embrace of Michael Howard has caused much wonderment, particularly in the liberal press. One moment shadow minister after shadow minister declares undying support for IDS, whose virtues of integrity and honour are said to be an extraordinary gift. Mr Howard himself says he has no wish other than that Mr Duncan Smith should remain leader of the Tory party. The next moment — whoosh! — the same shadow ministers are declaring their lifelong love for Mr Howard, as he clutches the cup that has been passed to him. Constituency chairmen who a few days ago publicly rubbed their eyes in disbelief and threatened a revolution if a hair on IDS’s bald pate was rearranged, also become instant converts to the charms of Mr Howard. The former home secretary, once dismissed as a slightly oily character whose very face evoked the baleful Major years, is represented as a man shaped by nature for his new role, the obvious saviour of the Tory party.

Journalists, particularly high-minded ones, are apt to laugh at these transparently cynical and self-serving MPs. Yet I wonder whether we are very different. I think, for example, of recent events at the Daily Telegraph. There were many long faces when the departure of Charles Moore as editor was announced several weeks ago. Some columnists and leader writers confided that the intellectual reputation of the newspaper was at stake. Martin Newland, the incoming editor, was said to be a raw newshound whose understanding of politics was very slight. How could this lightweight possibly replace a man of the stature of Mr Moore? Sarah Sands, the paper’s deputy editor, who had loyally served Mr Moore, was said to be closeted with her advisers, considering her position. Surely Conrad Black, proprietor of the Daily Telegraph, had made a dreadful mistake?

Only a few weeks have passed, and it turns out that Mr Newland is not such a clot after all.