In yesterday’s Observer Liam Fox set out the “three momentous challenges” facing Britain.
Top priority, he wrote, was the need to heal Britain’s “broken society” (a theme first highlighted on 12th June). Dr Fox acknowledged that the market forces of the 1980s may have generated economic revival but they also “reduced the role of the extended family and the security it represented”. He linked the decline of family life to decline in social behaviour and highlighted the problem of mental illness.
Momentous challenge two is economic renewal. Fox wrote: “Tories will not deal with a broken society by abandoning tried-and-tested economic beliefs.” He did not say how those “tried-and-tested” beliefs would be tempered, if at all, in order to protect what remains of the extended family (see "intruderism").
The third challenge highlighted by the Shadow Foreign Secretary “is to have a vision of the world beyond Britain or Europe.” In that regard he highlighted “tearing down the barriers to trade, and the anti-competitive trading practices that hinder the development of the poorest parts of the world”. These actions would, he said, “build lasting prosperity” and avoid the third world depending on aid handouts.
"He did not say how those “tried-and-tested” beliefs would be tempered, if at all, in order to protect what remains of the extended family."
Are you going to complain about the lack of detail in every other one of the contenders' articles? It would only be fair!
Posted by: | 04 July 2005 at 11:54
I thought it encouraging - that LF, generally (and probably unfairly) caricatured as an unreconstructed Thatcherite - should raise the social impact of capitalism as a first momentous challenge but the fact that he then offered an unqualified defence of the old ways of approaching economic questions raised a big question in my mind.
What grit will he throw into the "tried-and-tested" economic system to help extended families to prosper?
I didn't mean to unfairly single LF out. But he does need to be challenged on this tension within his article. ALL of the candidates need to be much more precise in their articles/ speeches - soundbite generalities need to be probed.
Posted by: Editor | 04 July 2005 at 14:05
While I agree there was lack of detail in Dr Fox's article, I also have to agree that this is the case with every single one of the leadership candidates (even Willets uses the broadest of broad brushes).
What is interesting, however, is that as superficial as they are, these articles are giving us an insight into what the candidates may stand for.
What's most noteworthy here are Dr Fox's first and third challenges - neither of which are the sort of thing people would probably expect him to dwell on. It's very good to see one of our politicians start to make a solid case for a right of centre approach to helping the developing world.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 July 2005 at 15:06
I'm getting a bit bored of this. One speech after another (or article) saying nothing very much, floating a few 'key messages' which mean nothing without the detail.
Can we sustain this for several months? Or shall we all go mad?
Posted by: buxtehude | 04 July 2005 at 16:18
"I'm getting a bit bored of this. One speech after another (or article) saying nothing very much, floating a few 'key messages' which mean nothing without the detail."
I don't agree that they "mean nothing". At the very least they are powerful indicators of where the various candidates are coming from.
I think that once the candidates have set out that base, they will be more able to talk about specific policy areas (although detail outside their own briefs will be hard until the contest begins for real).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 July 2005 at 16:26
"I'm getting a bit bored of this. One speech after another (or article) saying nothing very much, floating a few 'key messages' which mean nothing without the detail."
I don't agree that they "mean nothing". At the very least they are powerful indicators of where the various candidates are coming from.
I think that once the candidates have set out that base, they will be more able to talk about specific policy areas (although detail outside their own briefs will be hard until the contest begins for real).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 July 2005 at 16:27
James wants an ABC!
Posted by: Ray Davies | 04 July 2005 at 16:35
James wants an ABC!
Posted by: Ray Davies | 04 July 2005 at 16:36
Or a marginally more reliable internet connection ;=)
Posted by: James Hellyer | 04 July 2005 at 16:57