Earlier this week I used an editorial to welcome Liam Fox's mournful reference to Britain's massive number of abortions. I described his reference as a demonstration of political "courage". By that standard Dr Fox was a lot braver on yesterday's Morgan & Platell programme. This morning's Telegraph quotes him as saying:
"I would like to see the time limit reduced. I'd like to see it brought down serially from 20 [weeks]. I'd like to see it well below 20; I'd like to see us looking at limits more akin to some of the European countries at 12 to 14 weeks. I think that a society that actually aborts 180,000 unborn children every year is a society that needs to be asking a lot of questions about itself… For me it's a simple personal belief. It says, thou shall not kill, it doesn't say, thou shall not kill unless Parliament says it's OK."
The Telegraph notes that Britain's laws are amongst the most permissive in Europe. "In France, " it notes, "abortion after 12 weeks is allowed only if two doctors say that a woman's health is endangered or the foetus has a serious abnormality. In Sweden, abortion is provided free and on demand until week 18. After that, a woman must secure permission from a medical board. Denmark imposes limits after 16 weeks."
The Observer found that the other leading candidates took much more pragmatic views on abortion:
"David Cameron and David Davis's camps made clear yesterday that both men support lowering the limit, but only to 18-20 and 20 weeks respectively. Kenneth Clarke declined to comment, but has previously opposed lowering the limit."
It's easy to say that Dr Fox's expression of these views is a crude tactic to attract the views of the socially conservative Cornerstone Group but there is no doubting Dr Fox's sincerity on pro-life matters. He has been a long-standing opponent of abortion and established an advisory group on medical ethics when he was Conservative health spokesman.
"Who's is demonising Liam James ,not me or anyone else as far as I know"
You clearly missed my direct references to Ken Clarke and the BBC then, not to mention Melissa Kite in her role as cheerleader for David Davis. They misrepresented what Dr Fox said and applied smear after smear about the Religious Right, American politics and neo-conservatism. Any nasty association that's a shorthand for bad, in fact, rather than actually address what was said.
"I merely speculated that this may have been to get votes from the Cornerstone group.It was not meant to be a shot ,cheap or otherwise."
Well it's exactly the cheap shot that Melissa Kite used in her Telegraph piece. I mean, heaven forfend that he actually said something because he believed it was right...
"Our troops are hardly 'feeding back that they are demoralised by politicians dwelling on the legitimacy of the war'."
Except they are.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 19 September 2005 at 18:33
Whilst I would agree with James's line on this, what about other candidates in the campaign, to get back to my original question?
Posted by: Simon C | 19 September 2005 at 21:41
Isn't it slightly worrying though that those who show the most courage in the battle are the ones left lying in the mud of the battlefield when the war is over.
It is brave of Dr Fox to show that he has the courage of his convictions, personally I despair at the reports that some girls use abortion as a form of contraception having multiple terminations but who would look after the 180,000 unwanted children these girls don't want to take responsibility for their actions. This is a very difficult subject fraught with problems. It is not something that I would campaign on.
Posted by: a-tracy | 19 September 2005 at 22:31
Simon,in answer to your question.None of them really.
Posted by: malcolm | 20 September 2005 at 09:25
Simon: David Cameron championing public policy support for marriage was pretty brave I suppose. He certainly won't have won any friends amongst the more laissez-faire members of the Notting Hill set.
Posted by: Editor | 20 September 2005 at 09:48
Good point, Editor, although from recollection Damian Green and John Major had already brought marriage back in from the cold on the left of the Party, so perhaps he wasn't sticking his neck out that far.
What about DD & KC? Or is Malcolm right?
Posted by: Simon C | 20 September 2005 at 14:26
I'm right!That should get this thread going,Simon! If it doesn't I'll post that Ken Clarke has been brave.That should drag James Hellyer out at least!
Posted by: malcolm | 20 September 2005 at 17:04
It was certainly courageous (in the "Yes Minister" sense) to attend the BAT meet-and-greet at the Belgian Grand Prix...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 September 2005 at 17:14
I knew it!Typically nice comment James.Wasn't it courageous of Ken to say to Tory MPs and the general public that he wouldn't promise tax cuts until the errors of Gordon Brown at least had been rectified?
Posted by: malcolm | 20 September 2005 at 17:33
You asked for a comment on the "merchant of death"!
I don't think saying tax cuts can't be delivered immediately was courageous. It's mainstream thinking with the Maude posse.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 September 2005 at 17:38
You get worse and worse James!
Posted by: malcolm | 20 September 2005 at 17:48
Forgive me Gentlemen, but I had hoped that some of the other bloggers on this site, who aren't often shy about singing the praises of KC & DD, might have been able to come up with some examples.
Their silence is revealing.
Posted by: Simon C | 20 September 2005 at 17:59
"David Cameron championing public policy support for marriage was pretty brave I suppose. He certainly won't have won any friends amongst the more laissez-faire members of the Notting Hill set."
Editor, please give examples of advocates of laissez faire or "the Notting Hill set" actually opposing marriage. I cannot think of any.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 20 September 2005 at 18:29
They don't oppose marriage, Selsdon, but they may well think that the state shouldn't give it privileged status (and thus imply that alternative lifstyle choices are less valid).
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 September 2005 at 18:36
Indeed, James - there's no playing tricks on these people; they see that the very act of declaring support for marriage is the first stage in a plan to recriminalise sodomy and mandate forceable imprisonment for single parents.
Posted by: Blimpish | 20 September 2005 at 19:06
Is that a fact Blimpish.Examples please?
Posted by: malcolm | 20 September 2005 at 20:39
I believe it's called hyperbole, Malcolm. Much like the hyperbole Alan Duncan employed when he exited the leadership race with a broadside at the Tory Taliban. His targets, of course, were the socially Conservative MPs who see marriage as something to be promoted, and by inference a preferred form of relationship.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 September 2005 at 21:01
I live in hope my irony one day achieves great subtlety; but I know it's not THAT subtle.
Posted by: Blimpish | 20 September 2005 at 21:05
It could have been worse. You could have been accused of of deploying an army of Portillista straw men.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 September 2005 at 21:17
Yes - and if that isn't a coded homophobic sleight, I don't know what is...
Posted by: Blimpish | 20 September 2005 at 21:25
These are especially fey straw men...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 September 2005 at 21:49
Don't... Somebody will say they deserve a grant.
Posted by: Blimpish | 20 September 2005 at 21:52
They do street theatre. And Bah mitzvahs.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 September 2005 at 21:54
That's more grants - that means they have a 'culture' that must be celebrated. There'll probably need to be some Support Officers appointed too. And maybe a Strategic Body.
Posted by: Blimpish | 20 September 2005 at 22:04
We need a nationwide straw man initiative. Possibly even a straw man task force. Or a Tsar. Tony Blair could even take personal responsibility for the straw man situation.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 20 September 2005 at 22:13