Liam Fox: A Britain obsessed with celebrity, indifferent to serious learning and unsure of its values and history risks being unable to defend itself

1. Russia is spending over $200 billion in the next five years upgrading its forces.  Vladimir Putin's strategic bombers are probing UK airspace again.
2. The world's greatest exporter of terrorism - Iran - is inching ever closer to becoming a nuclear power.  An Iran - still publicly committed to wipe Israel off the face of the map - with nuclear capability will be able to sponsor 'nuclear terrorism' which may include the detonation of a dirty bomb containing enough radioactive material to contaminate whole cities.
3. The ideology of the Islamic fundamentalist continues to be spread across the globe.  All over the world young Muslims are being exposed to an ideology that is "irreconcilable to our political system and our values."

These were some of the threats outlined by Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox yesterday - during a speech to Politea.  He could also have mentioned the increasingly worrying situation in Pakistan.  Dr Fox warned that Britain was a nation that was losing its moral seriousness and that this endangered our ability to meet the threats to our peace and security:

"There seems to have been a view developing in recent years that defines peace simply as the absence of war.  If only we can avoid armed conflict the argument seems to say then we will live in a more peaceful world.  But peace is not simply the absence of war.  Real peace has an unavoidable set of values which accompany it.  Freedom from tyranny, freedom from oppression and freedom from fear are essential for real peace.  Unfortunately we sometimes have to fight and even to die for these freedoms. The need to maintain public support for the conflicts which are sometimes required to ensure these freedoms is a burden which democratic states have to carry but many of our enemies do not.  The absence of a clear and rational argument for the necessity of military action in certain circumstances can hand the advantage to those who wish to undermine our democratic systems and, indeed, our whole way of life.  This is where our social attitudes, our political direction and our national security converge- in the crucial question about the state of our national resilience.  For it is our resilience-  our political and social fortitude- which will determine whether or not we are able to deal with the threats and challenges which lie before us."

Pasted below are sections of Dr Fox's speech in which he identified the key forces weakening Britain's fortitude:

The cult of celebrity: "Society seems obsessed with celebrity, fame and trivia while serious learning and difficult achievement take second place.  Where in previous generations youngsters would aspire to be scientists or astronauts the answer to the question “what would you like to be?” is now simply: “famous”."

A decline in aspiration: "While India is producing huge numbers of mathematics, physics and chemistry graduates British numbers are falling, being replaced with soft subjects such as media studies. The unavoidable consequence is that we will have to import these skills from abroad or do without them altogether. Hardly a great accomplishment for our educational system."

Irrationality: "People seem to believe that the validity of their views is determined by the strength by which they hold them not by any reference to empiricism.  Thus we get the use of phrases such as “well that is your truth- it's not mine” or the increased frequency of the one word which is doing untold damage to the concept of objectivity – “whatever”.  When confronted with evidence which undermines the fashion du jour or your own prejudices simply lift your hand and say “whatever” and you can avoid all the discomforts of the value of truth or objectivity or of being plain wrong.  “Whatever” means never having to say you’re stupid."

Restrictions of free speech and debate: "How often do we hear people say “of course you're not allowed to say that are you” or “I’m not supposed to think that, am I?”. This is neither a small nor a trivial matter.  Political correctness is not just linguistic repression. In the name of liberal thought it is the very antithesis of liberalism.  In true Orwellian doublespeak fashion it is the imposition of a particular set of, usually left leaning, social and cultural mores.  The good manners and respect for others’ differences on which civilised behaviour depends should not be confused with the restrictive language and thought control which the PC culture promotes."

Moral decline: "For the most part our concept of right and wrong is in tune with our basic instincts and our understanding of the consequences of our actions.  These rights and wrongs are codified by religions not invented by them. In any case there are other, different, non- religious values which are part of our heritage-the concept of looking after those who cannot look after themselves, of hard work, perseverance and saving for a rainy day. States cannot operate without values and the seemingly all pervasive fear of causing offense because someone may disagree needs to be balanced by considerations of the benefits that can accrue to individuals and society alike of clear guidance on what is desirable behaviour."

> On Platform today Edward Leigh MP worries about Britain as 'The Nation That Forgot God'.

Failure to celebrate our commonality: "Britain has historically had a reasonably good track record in the assimilation of minority populations.  Yet we have been so obsessed in recent years with celebrating diversity that we have forgotten to celebrate our commonality.  Diversity is a good thing but we are also a society with a strong historical identity and we must not lose sight of who we are and how we have come to be the people we are.  If we fail to emphasise what we have in common and the cohesive forces which have made us the country we are then we will produce not diversity but fragmentation."

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[Paul Hampson]

I'm glad somebody said this. Every word is true.

[Norm Brainer]

Brilliant.
So good, I wonder what labour/libs will nitpick to blow up in to a scandal to call for his resignation

[David_at_Home]

At last it has been said!

First Dan Hannan and now Liam Fox. There is still life in the Tories.

[Malcolm Stevas]

I agree with most of Fox's words - very sound on the whole. So how does he square this with his membership of a Shadow Cabinet whose attitudes, ideas and policies (insofar as the latter have any substantial form) on e.g. immigration and the power/size of the State are so flaccid? The root cause of the failings he outlines lies in the arrogation by the State of powers & responsibilities which belong with the individual, and in its suborning of individual morality along with political liberty. A society of proud, self-reliant free people will always have the strength of character, the motivation and the ability to defend its culture, its morality, its education and its borders. To restore England's society it is necessary to cut back the State radically. I wonder if Dr Fox's words are directed as much at his colleagues as at any wider audience.

[Malcolm Dunn]

I thought this a bit of a dog whistle speech. Nothing wrong with that I suppose but what are the solutions he's proposing?

[Jonathan Galbraith]

Great stuff - I've long since been a Fox fan and we could do with hearing much more from him.

A bit of social conservatism in the Britain of 2009 is long overdue!

[MG]

I think the points are very good but don't see how they are at odds with what just about everyone in the Conservatives is saying.

[Councillor]

I usually have to put "don't know" how Liam Fox is doing on the ConHome surveys.
It is good to see what he is saying. Why don't we hear more?

[resident leftie]

People seem to believe that the validity of their views is determined by the strength by which they hold them not by any reference to empiricism.

He's obviously been reading Conservative Home!

[Jack Iddon]

Well, about time.
I know the compilation, sent to me some time ago from Australia and which I attach below only addresses one aspect of these issues but I think it worth sharing. They show a balanced approach to issues we dare not discuss in this land of freedom.
The UK Needs A Leader Like
Ex Prime Minister John Howard - Australia

How about this compilation Mr. Cameron?

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law
Were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia ,
As the government targeted radicals in a bid to head
Off potential terror attacks.
Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims
On Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies
Monitoring the nation's mosques.
Quote:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.
Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying
About whether we are offending some individual or their
Culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have
Experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority
Of Australians.'

'This culture has been developed over two centuries
Of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men
And women who have sought freedom'

'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese,
Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.
Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society
Learn the language!'

'Most Australians believe in God. This is not some
Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because
Christian men and women, on Christian principles,
Founded this nation, and this is clearly documented.

It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls
Of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you
Consider another part of the world as your new home,
Because God is part of our culture.'

'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why.
All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony
And peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE,
And we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.
But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping
About Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our
Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one
Other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force
You to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the
Country YOU accepted.'

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, UK citizens will find the
Backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.
HOW ABOUT YOU Mr. CAMERON, WHY NOT GIVE IT A TRY?

[strapworld]

Thank God for Dr Liam Fox. He is the voice of common sense. But will Cameron listen to him, as he should.

We need to restore pride. Let us bring everyone into having pride in themselves, pride in their Country and pride in our way of life.

We need a stong Military so there is a great need for a return of National Service. Not just for two or three years BUT two years with an understanding they attend yearly refreshers to keep them ready for action, should they be needed.

These cannot be easy options but an opportunity for individuals, to learn about the history of the Regiment, their battles, battle honours, lessons from history.

To learn discipline and self discipline. To make life long friendships from all walks of life.
From black, brown and white backgrounds. This is one positive way to bring the youth together.

To learn trades and discover abilities they did not realise they had.

But to provide a trained force able to be called upon in times of emergency.

Liam Fox has done this Country a great service. This is a massive wake up call and the Conservative Party should use this as a major part of their general election campaign.

[johnny come lately]

It all links in to ian Duncan Smith's broken country. Aimless youths, societies against each other. We need to be brought together and love of ones Country is the greatest reason.

Is Cameron the man to bring this tough love choice in? Is he a leader? Let us see what Cameron does with this excellent wake up call.

Will the Blair tribute Act act decisively?

[David Cooper]

If Liam Fox is indeed speaking of the need to exterminate political correctness, he is going to have the overwhelming support of the silent majority. Is there going to be a will for this?

[RichardJ]

"I thought this a bit of a dog whistle speech."

In what way?

"We need a stong Military so there is a great need for a return of National Service."

This isn't Continental Europe.

[RichardJ]

I've heard it said that Britain is a national of 5 million Swiss and 60 million East Germans. Alas Mr Fox's speech seems to confirm this.

[Alan Carcas]

Sorry Jack Iddon, this "speech" by John Howard has been circulated ad nauseum. Sadly, it never happened. It's a hoax!

As for RichardJ's "This isn't continenal Europe." Quite so, but why do we let them give us the run-around, and tell us all what to do in the name of "partnership." What a load of old cobblers. If Liam Foz had said get out of Europe, it would have been perfect.

[Jack Iddon]

Thank you for that Alan. I took it at face value and shared it as such. It still has a lot of sense contained in it.

[Dorothy Wilson]

Well said Liam. At last the Conservatives seem to be getting their act together. keep it up!

[Joe De Mocritus]

Ok Nothing to disagree with here, but what are the solutions?

Bring back Grammar Schools and real education could be a first step.
Reintroduction of quality thresholds on broadcasting licences would be another good idea.
Both the above suggested by someone on a BBC News forum this morning and seem to be a very good starting point.

[William Blake's Ghost]

Indeed well said Liam,

Of course it is just as easy to apply these issues to our political parties one can see how they apply to them as well.

So if serious politicians like Liam Fox want to prove their suitability to lead by example then they must reform their sleazy money grabbing self-interested political party organisations and our political institutions.

People in glass houses basically should not throw stones and unless they intend to sort their own acts out!

[Jason O'Mahony]

Speaking as an unashamed secular liberal I see little to be offended by in what he's said. What is interesting is the emergence of a "Traditionally Correct" element in response to the speech, which is just as odious as the Politically Correct crowd. I no more want Christianity rammed down my throat than I want Islam, and I say this as someone who chooses to practice his own Christianity in a private manner.
The danger is that the speech will be hijacked by the usual "Bring Back Rhodesia/Round up the poofters/Women should know their place" brigade who in fairness, I suspect Liam Fox will actually have little truck with.

[Tommy]

I'm surprised that conhome has reported this. It doesn't really fit in with conhome's disarmament agenda.

[Tommy]

"We need a stong Military so there is a great need for a return of National Service. Not just for two or three years BUT two years with an understanding they attend yearly refreshers to keep them ready for action, should they be needed."

Why? Some people don't want to join the military, why should they be forced to.

We need a strong military, but a strong military comes from high moral and good training, which in turn come from adequate equipment.

[Tommy]

morale*

[Michael McGowan]

Well put but I thought David Cameron likes Britain as it is....

[YourNameHere]

I agree, in particular, with the bit about irrationality, but is he going to speak out against religion in general? I doubt it.

[Kevin]

What he says about free speech and debate is very true. The trouble is that he might as well have said it to a tree at the bottom of his garden for all the notice EU Dave and his NuLabour lookalikes will take.

[John Smith]

Fox is right on issues like 'celebrity' and aspiration, but devastates himself using his attack on irrationality - Russia has been a superpower within not just living memory, but recent memory. Britain has not for a century. That strong polity we need is a European one, with strong, well defended enlightenment values. That military we need is a European military - the notion that we have the wealth, resources, or manpower to stand up against nations three (Russia), Five (America), or Twenty (China) times our size is kindof sweet, but also just risible.

[Tommy]

"Russia has been a superpower within not just living memory, but recent memory."

Russia has never been a super power, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was not Russia and even if it were, the USSR was never an economic super power, only a military one. If we wanted to spend 90% of our GDP on the military and plunge millions of our citizens into poverty then we could be just as powerful as the soviet union was.

"Britain has not for a century."

Not particularly good with dates are you?

"the notion that we have the wealth, resources, or manpower to stand up against nations three (Russia), Five (America), or Twenty (China) times our size is kindof sweet, but also just risible."

We are richer than Russia, by quite a large margin. The russian economy is entirely dependent on one company: Gazprom. So lets not pretend that Russia is some kind of great threat to world peace.

China has always been considerably larger than the United Kingdom, and yet we have for many hundreds of years, been the more powerful country. That has changed recently with the emergence of china as a major manufacturing country, but china is still poorer thn japan, yet japan has less than 1/10 the population that china has. Anyone with even a basic understanding of history knows that the population of a country has little effect on that countries economic/military/diplomatic strength.

If painting Russia as some kind of Bogey-Man is the best the europhiles can come up with, they are destined to lose the war.

[Tommy]

And another thing:

Why are we constantly talking as if the rise of other coutries is a bad thing? Are we really expecting the chinese to goose step through continental europe?

[Patsy Sergeant]

Socialists - the English/Scottish type don't 'do' armaments, 'nuclear' and war (well in Iraq, they tagged along), they are pacifists related to the Greenham Common protestors! You might say - nothing wrong in that! But since the cerebral home of these latter-day Marxists is Russia/USSR, there is a certain incongruity in their so-called peace-loving attitude. One does NOT equate Russia, even today, without a sizeable armoury of weapons - and growing apparently.

Sad to say, but because this government has only really 'played' at the defence of this country, while concentrating on other priorities, such as building up their personal assets, and attempting to govern by form-filling, and unrealistic targets, we have reached a stage, where, in an increasingly unstable world, we as a country would have difficulty, now, in defending ourselves.

[Jack Stone]

Why do we need a strong military. The chances of any other country attacking this country is very slim. We need a military large enough to defend this small island no more.
We need to cut the military back and spend the proceeds on modernising the country and improving public services.
This country no longer needs a large armed forces, we are not what we were. We have to accept that and act accordingly.

[Tommy]

Question marks Mr Stone!

[johnC]

No wonder there is a decline in 'serious learning and difficult achievement' when you can be Minister for Europe without having to read a word of the Lisbon Treaty and get away with it.

[Tommy]

"We need a military large enough to defend this small island no more."

It may have escaped your notice, but we do have commitments to other countries and our own country is not made up from one Island.

Bermuda, the falklands, st helena, the south sandwich islands, turks and caicos, diego garcia and the Cayman Islands are some of our overseas territories that we must protect.

Then there are other defence obligations which relate to other countries including nato, western europe, singapore, the anglophone caribbean and others.

Finally there are also our commitments to the UN regarding shipping, piracy, slavery and people trafficking, drug trafficking and the safety of Life at sea.

[Tommy]

How could I possibly forget our obligation to the EU Rapid Reaction force and the fact that we are practically soley responsible for the policing and patroling of the eu's exclusive economic zone?

[Mara MacSeoinin]

Just to play Devil's advocate: it seems a little self-defeating to rail against fundamentalists whose belief systems are "irreconcilable to our political system and our values" and then go on to say that we have little or no values, our yoof is illogical, badly educated and lacking in plausible aspirations; we're not permitted to say anything without being censu(o)red; white Britons are treated like the inferior race and patriotism is seen as the province of the BNP; a good education and background is seen as grounds for discrimination; and our political system is Orwellian. In fact, it makes any other system sound tempting in comparison.
What Labour have achieved can be summed up very neatly by a look at the beginning and the end of their reign: two funerals. The first was for a lady who exemplified grace, breeding, kindness and charity; the second will be for a foul-mouthed, bigoted guttersnipe. The idea of what comprises greatness has been reduced to 'getting on the telly'.

[Tony Sharp]

"That strong polity we need is a European one, with strong, well defended enlightenment values. That military we need is a European military."

That is the best April Fool gag I have seen all day. Thank you, John Smith.

Returning to the real world from John Smith's parallel universe, one look at the 'European military' is enough to make one despair at its effectiveness, lack of resources and inability to deploy for even the most basic of humanitarian interventions.

Europe has relied upon and still relies upon America to provide a military umbrella. The EU has delusions of grandeur and talks a great game, but the lack of investment in the military and the lack of political will to ensure it is fit for purpose shows it to be a paper tiger.

As for values, when someone can identify what these European values are supposed to be, do let us know. You would have a great scoop.

[Ash Faulkner]

Mara, you want to read 'The Abolition of Britain' by Peter Hitchens. Where you chart the decline from Diana's funeral to Jade Goody's, he charts it from Winston Churchill's to Diana's. Diana's funeral was not the last gasp of greatness, it was the clearest demonstration of decline.

[John Prendergast]

We not onpy need a commitment to incesed defence spending (get the money from County, town and District councils and sacking most of MoD's 97,000 scivil servants. We need to engage in modern warfare where we have stealth aircraft, possibly unmanned, full scale cyber defence capaility to counter China, Iran, Pakistan, etc. Have any of you looked inside your Chinese made computers, Blackberries, and telephones and found chips and circuits that do not seem to do anything, well they are there as spies for China, sometime soon. We need a proper Navy and deployable Troops capable of defneding UK interests in both small scale wars and full scale ones. China is the real threat, Russia will want to chuck its weight around, however Russia may yet turn out to be a much needed ally. We should leave Continental Europe to the wolves - they will come. We should bolster the Anglosphere.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

. "Diversity is a good thing but we are also a society with a strong historical identity and we must not lose sight of who we are and how we have come to be the people we are. If we fail to emphasise what we have in common and the cohesive forces which have made us the country we are then we will produce not diversity but fragmentation."

Jack Iddon @ 9.47 puts it much better than Fox (whether or not Howard actually made the speech)
The Aussies are much more patriotic and respectful of their Armed Forces than the British.

There is much in the speech of Fox that is perfectly true, but he lacks credibility when, as a supposedly Eurosceptic, he wants Turkey to join the EU - a country with a large population and a significant fundamental Muslim organisation keen to dismiss the
reforms of Kemal Ataturk

The question is for whose consumption is the speech aimed at? Will he give a different speech to the EU?

[pp]

A great analysis of the state of play, but not so much on the causes and solutions.

The root cause is that individuals do not feel at all connected to many of these issues.

The state/government have grabbed responsibility for great swathes of issues and effectively told the public that it is none of their business any longer.

The cult of celebrity: In any normal job the state takes so much of your money, it is hardly worth it - is it.

A decline in aspiration: The state does all it can to harness your efforts to its own benefit - leaving the individual no better off. The only aspiration is to be free of the state - and being on benefits actually leaves you more free of the state than any working person is.

Irrationality: People hold little regard for spoken argument - just look at the 'not-lies' they have been fed by the government over the years. It doesn't matter what anyone says, because they will later make it mean something entirely different to what they meant at the time. So got a clever argument? "whatever, I don't have time to listen to what you say because you will just do what you want to do anyway".

Restrictions of free speech and debate: Socialist social engineering - want a job in the 'oh so cosy' public sector? Follow our rules. Deviate and you are out.

And so on... its the government wot dunnit.

Government extravention in all these areas will put responsiblity and reward back with the people where it belongs.

Government - ask not what more you can do for the people, ask rather whether you really need to do anything at all.

[Tommy]

"Russia may yet turn out to be a much needed ally"

Hear! Hear!

I have always maintained that Russia is the perfect country to build bridges with. Russia has many many problems, but we would be better at trying to pursuade them to change, on issues like human rights, corruption etc if we weren't canstantly on the offensive with them.

[john parkes]

The Fox speech as reported here has brought to light the usual diversity of view about our national defence capability. The theory that this would be enhanced by the re-introduction of National (Military) Service is a non-starter. We had it in operation in war-time and post-war, until the early 1960s, when latterly the Army alone was close on one million strong. This allowed a training organisation that could cope with the burden of training young, mostly unwilling, recruits who gave about 3 months useful work in a total of 24 months enlistment. There is no way in which this would be possible today, with an all-volunteer Army whose total manpower of 100,000 could be squeezed into Wembley Stadium. A more realistic way of helping the young to develop would be to spend money on their secondary education by re-introducing schools that operate within the old grammar school ethos of academic excellence, good manners and sport.
The fact remains that until human nature changes, we will continue to need an armed, ever-ready capability to defend the national interest both at home and overseas. As we can only afford to do this within alliances, such capability as we can provide will be the premium we pay for our security insurance.
Having been brought up in a liberal tradition of respect for the views and beliefs of others, I have been reluctant to criticise those now loudly expressed by certain sections of our nation. However I no longer find it acceptable that first or second generation immigrants to this country, feel able to try to bring about radical changes in our national interest, often by violent means. These include such measures as overt support for the policies of other countries espousing, for example, Islamist ideals that are inimical to our own Judaeo/Christian beliefs.
It is time we looked again at the sort of country we want to be and then not lose sight of that ideal

[Helen]

Errm, what is Dr Fox suggesting we should do about the ever closer integration within the European common foreign and defence policy? Anything?

[Jack Stone]

John Prendegast. We should do our upmost to build peaceful relations with all countries and cultures not spend billions on arming ourselves. We need to forget the past where we had an empire and start acting like what we are just a small island off the coast of europe.

[Tommy]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[resident leftie]

I think I may have stood in queue at the Post Office with Liam Fox, or someone who said pretty much the same thing.

His points can be summed up as follows:

Young people today...
Things were better in the old days.
No one listens to me.
No moral standards, that's the problem.
It's political correctness gone mad.
I've got nothing against them, but...

[Raoul]

I'd rather see David Davis as Defence Secretary. Someone with frontline experience and drive to get things in order..

Sorry Liam, you just dont have it for me and have taken far too long to do and say anything..

[Tommy]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN.

[Super Blue]

"a decline in serious learning and difficult achievement"

Has Dr. Fox been introduced to Jock Stale?

[RichardJ]

"Young people today...
Things were better in the old days.
No one listens to me.
No moral standards, that's the problem.
It's political correctness gone mad.
I've got nothing against them, but..."

How about addressing the points he actually made? Do you deny the existence of the ghastly cult of celebrity?

[David_at_Home]

Mrs_at_Home was speaking to a friend the other day. She (the friend) was concerned that some middle aged “reformed” druggie had been invited to her daughter’s primary school to tell the children about drugs. The theme was “All teenagers take drugs so you had better find out about them.” Ditto teenage sex.

All good leftie stuff. Undermine the nation, its history and constitution (it was a rubbish nation anyway), abolish marriage (an outdated concept and we must not be judgmental, must we?), sideline the parents (out of touch with modern life), do away with childhood and whoopee, we are all equal now.

[Watervole]

Well said Liam Fox.

[Francis]

Well said, Strapworld.

I'm a strong believer in National Service too. It would be an excellent way of increasing social cohesion.

Multiculturalism (which is inevitable in a free country) only becomes a problem when it becomes fragmentation.

National service would be a great way of solving such fragmentation. Spending two years bashing about together would be a fantastic way of making sure that future generations start their adult lives with a core of shared values and experience.

It would be good for the individual, too.

[Malcolm Stevas]

National service would be a great way of solving such fragmentation. Spending two years bashing about together would be a fantastic way of making sure that future generations start their adult lives with a core of shared values and experience.
Nonsense. I'm a few years too young to have been threatened by it but practically everyone I've spoken to who got called up slammed it as a waste of time at best - two year's out of one's life at a critical time! - and sheer bloody misery at worst. It's militarily useless (within our system at least) as others have pointed out. And I find the desire to homogenise people's formative years rather sinister.

[Martin Wright]

In many ways an excellent speech.

I do have one criticism and that is that Dr Fox feels bound to toe the PC line: " Diversity is a good thing .." Diversity is a state of affairs, not necessarily good or bad, but something that we have to be aware of. It is not a virtue in itself, but an attribute. You might as well argue that "odd numbers are good". I think the people of China or Japan or a host of other homogenous societies might be rather offended by the idea that they lacked virtue on the basis that they lacked diversity.

[Sarah]

Hurray for Liam Fox! I agree with every word. It is such a shame that David Cameron has seemed so determined to marginalise Dr Fox as he speaks so much sense in my opinion. He should be seen and heard from more often, not kept hidden away for fear of stealing Dave's limelight.

[Jack Stone]

Martin Wright. Suppose you want an all white army.Perhaps we could have black regiments like the americans use to have.
We should celebrate the fact we are a nation of many cultures, faiths and backgrounds not be afraid of it or condemn it.

[John Prendergast]

Jack Stone, talking peace without the means of preserving it and furthering one's legitimate interest is leftie daftness. Without a Royal Navy one cannot ensure our fish is ours, our food is ours, nor our oil.

Besides, the British Empire was, on balance, a good thing, it bought to many countries public health, post, rail, justice, education, a sense of Nationhood, and markets. The empire took away Slavery and Malaria , Typhoid and Small pox too. The British Empire fought hard agaisnt famine and drought too, long before the lefties invented the Global Warming Con. Yes the Britsh Empire had its down side too but the good outweighed the bad, we lost too many battles at the start of wars by eing under prepared- just as Stone seems to want.
We empire citizens, collectively sacrificed our Empire to keep Europe free from Dictators, twice. Remember our daughter country , the USA, did very litle in WW1 and though was at least as major a player in WW2 as USSR, Britain had won major battles before the Americans had begun to appea on the battlefield. The withdrawal from Dunkirk after the second Battle of Arras (where the German Army under Guderian and his brigadier, Erwin Rommel, was checked for the first time since 1936). The Battle of Britain, the victory in Abysinia, El Alamein and the siege of Malta. Minor voctories such as the River Plate offset a sring of losses. We have always been perceived by lefties as a small island off Europe. Their mistake, too frequently. Remember those who forget history, live to repeat its mistakes (no, I didn't invent that one!).

[David_at_Home]

Well said, John [email protected]. Toryism at its best!

[Philip]

This must be one of the best, most substantial and important speeches by a senior Conservative for a long time. Agree with everything he is reported to have said. It is heartening to see that at least one senior Conservative seems to understand the threats to our way of life we face – whether it be from militant Islamism or through political correctness.

I wonder if Dr Fox would have allowed Geert Wilders in, in the interests of truth and freedom of speech. I wonder how he would translate into legislation what he said about free speech - so that the targeting of Christians on the grounds of ‘diversity’ or ‘discrimination’ etc, is stopped. Would he (and is he arguing in Shadow Cabinet for) repeal all Labour’s ‘hate-speech and ‘anti-discrimination’ legislation that curbs free speech, religious freedom and freedom to live according to conscience? It is remembered that Mr Cameron sided with Labour against freedom for the Catholic adoption agencies – presumably to appease the gay lobby and the BBC.

What Dr Fox said about free speech can be illustrated by this story. Once upon a time, two ladies were talking at a bus stop in a town when a ‘gay pride’ march was passing by. One said to the other, “This isn’t right, is it?” the second lady responded, “Ssshhh! We’re not supposed to say that!” This is actually true. (And it was when we were last in power). Just like in the old “Eastern Block” where people had to be careful not to say anything critical of the communists – the secret police may overhear! That to me illustrates how far we had slid into tyranny and fear even before New Labour came to power, no doubt through failure to stand up for what is right and to resist the forces of political correctness.

The good manners and respect for others’ differences on which civilised behaviour depends should not be confused with the restrictive language and thought control which the PC culture promotes. Absolutely right.

Diversity is a good thing but we are also a society with a strong historical identity and we must not lose sight of who we are and how we have come to be the people we are. That is, a nation built on (cp the Coronation Oath) on Protestant Reformed Christianity. The threats to freedom Dr Fox warns about must be one of the ‘perils’ of turning our back on this Judeo-Christian tradition (see the Nation that Forgot God thread on Platform…)

[Martin Wright]

Jack Stone. I didn't say I wanted an all white army so please don't misrepresent my comment. I said that diversity or its opposite, homogeneity, is not intrinsically good or bad.

Diversity can bring benefits but it can bring disadvantages too. It all depends. Jugoslavia was a very diverse state and look what happened there.

So please, let's not have more compulsory "celebration";lets have more realism

[Super Blue]

"Suppose you want an all white army".(Jock Stale "quoting" Martin Wright".

I missed that remark - should I apply some lemon juice to the screen in case it was in invisible ink?

[MG]

While I agree that full blown national service is unlikely to work again I do not think because the military were not keen on that model, that no form of national service would work. On the contrary I think there is a role for ex-service personnel to run a form of national service for young men who are beginning to engage in repeat low level crime. Furthermore I think that this interim service would give opportunities and discipline to many young men that, once pre-trained, could then be offered a career in the services.

[Ross]

Morality? From a colleague of a leader who in one of his key conference speeches elevated co-habiting sodomites to a moral par with decent married couples?

Yes, Liam Fox is right to warn against the dangers of Islamist intolerance. But the problem with their thinking is the primitive polygamy, their cleric-approved pedophila and their arrogant subjugation of women.
In this still-officially-Christian country, other decent values are being trampled, and it's nonsense to blame Muslims for the rise of perv power. Most Muslims share honest Christians' loathing of perversion.
What does Fox feel (we know Cameron is in the enemy camp)--?

[OH]

Resident Leftie - precisely therefore the sort of thing people in the street are espousing! Easy to mock; hard to criticise.

[OH]

John Smith, have you the slightest awareness of what drives the average serviceman or woman? It is, however strange you may find this, a deep love of one's country. To fight in the name of the EU would not just be anathema, but gut wrenchingly offensive. To use a phrase, I speak from experience. Furthermore, to link the epithet 'Enlightenment' with the EU is rather like linking the term 'Emapncipation' with the Stasi.

[The Bishop Swine]

"I'm glad somebody said this. Every word is true."

I agree 100%.

Russia may well come to our rescue in this respect, having indicated that they intend rearming themselves. If the Russians are taken seriously many of our economic problems will simply melt away.

[Francis]

"I'm a few years too young to have been threatened by it but practically everyone I've spoken to who got called up slammed it as a waste of time . . . It's militarily useless (within our system at least) as others have pointed out. . . I find the desire to homogenise people's formative years rather sinister."

Posted by: Malcolm Stevas

I don't know how they did things in the 50s, but most people would agree that learning self discipline, working as part of a close group and overcoming physical hardships builds character. The military can provide our youth with all of this.

Conscript armies do well in wars of national self defence. I agree that they do less well in other wars, but I suppose we could keep a core force (Paras, Marines etc) to deal with those.

I certainly don't want people's formative years homogenised. What I think is necessary is to provide each generation with a positive shared experience.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"I'd rather see David Davis as Defence Secretary. Someone with frontline experience and drive to get things in order..

Sorry Liam, you just dont have it for me and have taken far too long to do and say anything.."

Posted by: Raoul | April 01, 2009 at 15:44

I think you will find Davis has his hands full at the moment:

Davis in conversation as reported in the Guardian 10/2/09

"Davis is all fired up about the government's problems over Mohamed, who says he was tortured with the complicity of British intelligence in Pakistan and Morocco. He plans to stage a press conference on Wednesday with Mohamed's tenacious US lawyer, Colonel Yvonne Bradley".

He and appears to be acting as a civil rights lawyer on behalf of those that might be detained suspected of terrorism (he is against 42 days) and also for Mohamed who was an innocent bystander (probably innocently waiting for a bus or such) and allegedly tortured in Gitmo Bay.

I believe Davis (said to be a right winger) recently communicated his fears through the Guardian ( well known left wing newspaper).

A Telegraph (a right-wing newspaper) editorial suggested that in was not in the public interest to pursue accusations of torture, which could be disputed, against the security services. But then the editor of the Telegraph probably does not go to bed with a copy of the Magna Carta hanging up in his lavatory (unlike me).

I am sure the security services appreciate the assistance of Davis and his ability to get things done (or someone or anyone).

I believe that Davis would be the ideal man to put in charge of our defence (of the Silly Isles) so that we could all sleep safely on our beds. (I am not to sure about the residents of the Silly Isles).

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"I'm a few years too young to have been threatened by it but practically everyone I've spoken to who got called up slammed it as a waste of time . . . It's militarily useless (within our system at least) as others have pointed out. . . I find the desire to homogenise people's formative years rather sinister."

Posted by: Malcolm Stevas

Was National Service "sinister"? It is the first duty of government to protect the realm. If we are unable to man our defences with sufficient volunteers then we will have to get "sinister" one way or another. Of course it will not happen because of this:

"A Britain obsessed with celebrity, indifferent to serious learning and unsure of its values and history risks being unable to defend itself" He could have added, adorned with soppy libertarians and fellow travellers.

"Sinister" is a term more appropriate to describe the Left and moral relativism.

[Malcolm Stevas]

Francis:
".. self discipline, working as part of a close group and overcoming physical hardships builds character. The military can provide our youth with all of this.
...What I think is necessary is to provide each generation with a positive shared experience."
I don't decry military conscription altogether, and in the sort of properly free, libertarian society into which I hope England might evolve, there is much to be said for a citizen army something like the Swiss model - a society that's worth living in is one worth defending, fighting for, and there's a good argument for citizenship and military service being linked.
But under our present system I think conscription is impractical, inefficient, immoral and unworkable - I mean, who would want to be conscripted into an army that could be sent to war on the command of, say, John Prescott...
Moreover, I'm worried by this group-think stuff about "shared experience"; in my free libertarian society, it's no part of the State's function to impose anything like this on its citizens or "provide" anyone with the sort of values you outline. Good values become imbued in young people naturally in a society in which people are free, responsible, self-respecting and self reliant, rather than being regarded (as now) pretty much as the property of the State, sheep to be fattened-up and harried by dogs.
Dontmakemelaugh:
”Was National Service "sinister"?”
No, just oppressive, pointless, timewasting and soul-destroying.
“It is the first duty of government to protect the realm.”
Gee whiz, a truism. Sure, but what government? The present system of elective dictatorship is not one that I will permit to conscript my son – see above re Prescott.
”soppy libertarians and fellow travellers.”
This is as foolish as it is insulting. Most of the libertarians I know are considerably tougher on defence – both national and individual – than are typical Tory or Labour supporters. And they are the opposite of “soppy”, believing in robust self-reliance and individuality and a strong, free society, rather than the craven conformism and group-think typified by a certain kind of Tory for whom the regimented stultification of National Service represents some weird sort of ideal…

[Dontmakemelaugh]

" I don't decry military conscription altogether, and in the sort of properly free, libertarian society into which I hope England might evolve, there is much to be said for a citizen army something like the Swiss model - a society that's worth living in is one worth defending, fighting for, and there's a good argument for citizenship "

Posted by:
Malcolm Stevas | April 02, 2009 at 23:20
and military service being linked.

I am pleased to see that you have corrected yourself and now " I do not decry military conscription altogether"; otherwise the word "sinister" is an insult as far as I am concerned, a description you appeared to apply to National Service

The people with whom I served (I was a Regular) were never sinister and neither were the governments of Attlee, Churchill, Eden or Macmillan under whom National Service took place.

It is true that it disrupted lives, but it also enriched, bonded and disciplined (not your style me thinks) with a shared patriotic experience. I knew of employers who recognised and preferred to employ those that had performed National Service because they had a certain quality of responsibility

The Swiss system that you quote still requires time to be devoted to training.

National Service during its implementation was not "just oppressive, pointless, timewasting and soul-destroying". Russia was still a threat behind the "Iron Curtain"
Khrushchev had threatened, "We will bury the West".

At the moment, Stevas you are being protected by volunteers - long may it continue. I am sure that most of those looking back on National Service do not regret it.

" I find the desire to homogenise people's formative years rather sinister."

I would much prefer a homogenised society (we are not brainwashed) than the multiculti society that we now have with its fractured parts and opposing values, but then again I am no libertarian.

And now you have made me late for bed and with the 2nd day of the Grand National meeting on tomrrow - tut, tut. I must learn to ignore "timewasters".

[Malcolm Stevas]

Dontmakemelaugh:
"I am pleased to see that you have corrected yourself and now " I do not decry military conscription altogether"..."
It was a qualification, not a correction. There's a difference.
"The people with whom I served (I was a Regular) were never sinister and neither were the governments of Attlee, Churchill, Eden or Macmillan..."
You're getting mixed up. I described as sinister the desire to subject our youth to institutionalised bullying and stultification, carried out by the sort of untrustworthy, dangerous elective dictatorships we get under the present system. I quite obviously (I'd have thought) was not referring to the people so treated. And you are somewhat starry-eyed about those administrations you mention...
"..it...enriched, bonded and disciplined (not your style me thinks) with a shared patriotic experience."
Hah! Two years living in a draughty nissen hut in Norfolk, peeling spuds and whitewashing kerbstones? A criminal, dimwitted waste of people's lives.
"Russia was still a threat behind the "Iron Curtain"..Khrushchev had threatened, "We will bury the West"."
Yes, I do know all that. If you're suggesting a few thousand National Servicemen peeling spuds in Norfolk represented any sort of counter to that threat, you're barmy.
"...you are being protected by volunteers - long may it continue"
You keep stating the obvious. And you seem to imagine I have impugned our armed forces, a fanciful interpretation of what I wrote.
"I am sure that most of those looking back on National Service do not regret it."
Are you indeed. Not the ones I've met...
"I would much prefer a homogenised society (we are not brainwashed) than the multiculti society that we now have with its fractured parts and opposing values, but then again I am no libertarian."
Again, you're very mixed up. Where on earth did multiculturalism come into this? And how did you acquire the extraordinary notion that libertarians are enthusiasts for it?
"And now you have made me late for bed and with the 2nd day of the Grand National meeting on tomrrow - tut, tut. I must learn to ignore "timewasters""
Then don't waste your time watching horse racing - we already know one horse can run faster than others, and surely it doesn't particularly matter which one...