DURING his conference speech yesterday, Michael Howard spoke at length about the need for truth and accountability in British politics.

In doing so, both directly and indirectly, he questioned the credibility of the Prime Minister. The inference was that Mr Howard is more worthy of the British public's trust than Mr Blair.

Trust, or rather the lack of it, is an important factor in modern politics. The case for the war against Iraq has focused attention on our loss of faith in politicians.

It is a high risk strategy for Mr Howard to adopt, perhaps demonstrating the depth of despair within Conservative ranks just seven months away from a general election.

By questioning the integrity of his political opponents, Mr Howard risks drawing attention to his own integrity.

We have to ask whether it is wise for Mr Howard to place so much emphasis on the virtues of honesty and credibility when his most well-known political act was to evade a straightforward question on live television no less than 14 times. By his own standards today, he would have been sacked as Home Secretary after that Newsnight interview in 1997.

Yesterday, Mr Howard also made much of his debt of gratitude to Britain, which gave his parents shelter and a new life during the Second World War.

It was ironic that this emotional conclusion to his speech followed a section on his party's immigration policy, which would involve drawing up an annual quota of legal immigrants and withdrawal from the United Nations Refugee Convention.

By his own standards today, Mr Howard's family may not have been allowed to settle in Britain when they fled Nazi persecution.

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, for blatant electoral advantage, Mr Howard is latching on to the Prime Minister's fading popularity and the public's concern on immigration. And that his advocacy of a new era of honesty and accountability is little more than a front for the age-old political tactic of opportunism.