OFFICIALS in his own department are said to hate him. The same apparently goes for other Whitehall mandarins who come into contact with him. The chattering classes revile him. Opposition MPs barely hide their disdain. On Tuesday night, Mr Ken Livingstone cited him for the "oil creep of the year award".
In private certainly, some minters would endorse the nomination. He is routinely overturned by the courts, and appears in constant confrontation with the judiciary.
Yet the British Home Secretary, Mr Michael Howard, sails sublimely on.
It's been Howard's way all week. While judges, commentators and civil libertarians mutter their dark forebodings, the home secretary's agenda dominates the front pages. And to the dismay of the former, Mr Jack Straw, his Labour "shadow," feels obliged to lend a helping hand.
Monday's Daily Express splashed with the story of another teenage tearaway resuming his joyriding activities upon return from a foreign trip designed to help his rehabilitation.
That same morning, the Daily Mail reported the British people's verdict on "lenient" judges: "Yes, we do want tough justice."
An ICM poll reported 92 per cent backing for tougher sentencing policy with 87 per cent agreeing that judges and the courts are out of touch with public concerns over crime.
This morning's headlines carry Mr Howard's response - automatic life sentences for second time rapists and violent offenders; minimum three year terms for third time burglars; a minimum six years for hard drugs dealers convicted a second time; and an end to automatic remission for prisoners.
Mr Harry Fletcher of the National Association of Probation Officers dismissed the package as "fantasy penal policy", saying it could add another 35,000 to the prison population. But if another dozen prisons are required, Mr Howard will be happy to provide them.
Labour's home affairs spokesman, Mr Alun Michael, insisted the proposals didn't "stack up". But Mr Michael's charge that he was only "catching up" with Labour ideas on sentencing policy reflected again the dilemma the home secretary seems routinely to present the opposition while casting another cloud of depression over the party's civil liberties lobby.
They found themselves powerless on Tuesday night, as Mr Howard railroaded his additions to the Prevention of Terrorism Act through the House of Commons in just under six hours.
The new stop and search powers for police passed into law yesterday, barely 48 hours after Mr Howard served MPs notice of his intentions. By then, of course, he'd already squared Labour's front bench.
However, not even Mr Howard could have anticipated how easy his parliamentary passage would be.
At times on Tuesday it was possible to forget this was a government proposal. Under fire from Mr Kevin McNamara and others, Mr Straw found himself obliged to defend the measures.
And he even earned congratulations from the home secretary for his "compelling" explanation that the new measures were in no way comparable to the notorious "sus" laws.
As on most matters of an Anglo Irish dimension, the Labour leadership of course found itself on the horns of a dilemma. Mr Straw was satisfied from his security briefing that the case for the new powers had been made.
"There are no civil rights that can be exercised from the graveyard," he declared.
When the need for tough measures is couched in such terms few, in truth, feel able or disposed to argue. Mr Howard insisted that he could not have brought the measures forward earlier - nor given an indication of his thinking three weeks before when the Commons renewed the PTA.
And while no one would point to anything specific, Mr Howard stressed the virtue of speedy passage if the measures could save even one life during the Easter holiday.
There were further indications yesterday that the security authorities are expecting a new wave of IRA attacks in Britain. But many sceptics wonder how effective these additional powers could prove in face of a concerted IRA campaign.
There are deep seated fears that they will be used in blanket fashion against the Irish, and other minorities. And there is the lingering suspicion that this was yet another piece of Howard populism designed to wrong foot the Labour Party.
Some on Labour's front bench share the suspicion. And Tories are delighted by their discomfiture.
"This is about the Conservatives winning the next election," purred one of their number yesterday. "Howard is adored by the Tory rank and file. Why? Because he's the first Home secretary in living memory to stand up to the liberal establishment."
It's been a bad week for that liberal establishment. And it's sobering to reflect on the gulf between them and the voters in the country. According to ICM, the punters are happy to reside down Howard's way.