Editorial: Dr Fox's extra mile compassion

Continuing to explore his theme of mending Britain's 'broken society' Dr Liam Fox has focused on mental health problems in a speech to the SANE mental health charity.  Dr Fox used his speech to link Tony Blair's "irresponsible reclassification of cannabis" with "an increased number of young people suffering from psychotic illness".  He identified helping people with serious mental health problems as the "last great social reform":

“The way in which a society treats those at least able to play a full role is a measure of how civilised that society is.  Sadly, I believe that we accept a level of care for those with mental illness that we simply would not accept for those with other types of illness.  When we walk around our major cities, and see people, many of whom will suffer from a mental illness, sleeping in the doorways of some of our most beautiful buildings and venerable institutions then we are witnessing a policy failure that a humane society should not tolerate.”

This speech needs to be read alongside Dr Fox's earlier remarks to the Centre for Social Justice about domestic violence and his establishment of a Tory party human rights group.  They mark what might be called an 'extra mile compassion'.  On many occasions when Tories turn to issues of social justice they focus on helping people to stand on their own two feet and to begin leading independent and dignified lives.  That compassion is an essential ingredient of one nation conservatism and is vital in a Labour Britain where social mobility has stopped and welfare challenges have been ducked.  But it is not enough.

There are some people who will always need special care and Conservatives should be proud to provide it.  People with serious mentally health problems and the very old are two such deserving causes.  'Extra mile compassion' is not a compassion that will save money in the way that many necessary welfare reforms eventually will.  It is a form of compassion that voters don't readily associate with Tories.  Suspicious voters often think we dress old money-saving welfare reform policies in new clothes and they don't trust us to deliver them.

Dr Fox is demonstrating to younger and values voters that the economic bottom line is not the defining characteristic of his 'extra mile compassion'.  He is presenting an unconditionally compassionate Conservatism that will genuinely help repressed people living under totalitarian regimes and, at home, he wants to fashion policies that will bring hope to women who have been victims of terrible domestic violence.    

Comments

[James Hellyer]

So when are you going to endorse Dr Fox?

[James Hellyer]

It's a shame that Dr Fox's speeches don't seem to be attracting much coverage. They certainly challenge the populr caricature of him as either a Thatcherite retread or, to quote Kenneth CLarke, a "neo conservative".

The commitment he's shown for helping the vulnerable and needy isn't something any other leadership candidate has expressed. For example, Davis's IPPR speech stopped short at creating opportuinity. It didn't recognise that some people are unable to take advantage of opportunity. On its own that is not enough.

[Editor]

You didn't ask me a similar question, James, after what I said about DD's foreign policy speech? I will probably "announce" at some point but, for the time being, I'm merely identifying the most encouraging contributions...

[malcolm]

This sounds a very good speech and I too am sorry that some of Liams speeches don't recieve the coverage they deserve. He should take a leave out of Clarkes book and attack Labour at every opportunity in an effort to make himself heard.
He should compare his ideas to Labours and be aggressive in delivery,at the moment he sounds too damned reasonable.I know self loathing Tories like Maude try and encourage being reasonable at all times but it doesn't get you noticed and sometimes appears a bit weak.Liams messages on human rights and mental illness are good,he should be shouting from the rooftops!

[James Hellyer]

"You didn't ask me a similar question, James, after what I said about DD's foreign policy speech?"

The one you where you said "I would state one big “however”: the development section is a little light. There is little of Liam Fox’s excellent emphasis on human rights, for example..."?

Given the rest of it was remarkably similar to the Fox oevre, that paragraph in itself could point favourably towards Dr Fox!

I'll stop cherrypicking your posts now ;=)

[James Hellyer]

"He should take a leave out of Clarkes book and attack Labour at every opportunity in an effort to make himself heard."

The thing is, Malcolm, that attacking Labour doesn't tell me what that candidate wants to do with the party or the country.

At the last election, we set out what we didn't like about the current government, but we didn't set out a positive and optimistic view. We can't pick that up from candidates if all they do is bash Blair.

[James Maskell]

Attacking Labour can tell us that. In a speech you dont just criticise, you have to say what you would do to correct the situation. That can give hints to your character which would suggest how you would behave as Party Leader.

[Blimpish]

We need to rise above the Labour-bashing-for-its-own-sake stuff. It leads us into dead ends where we're seen to be doing down the country, always looking for the negative - that's alright for the Left, but the Right are supposed to be patriotic. We don't want to look like a professional Opposition - we want to look like a Government-in-waiting.

[Blimpish]

Incidentally, Fox is bang-on with this and to be commended for raising what's a very badly handled issue. Not to be cynical about such matters, but my guess is that we can probably make some real headway with these things - not just from 'compassionate' voters, but from lots of more regular folk who simply despair of politicians' closing mental institutions with nothing to put in their place. (My would-be vote is still for Davis.)

[James Hellyer]

"Attacking Labour can tell us that. In a speech you dont just criticise, you have to say what you would do to correct the situation."

Not really. That just marks your disagreement on a narrow issue. It defines you by what you wouldn't do. That's a recipe for a one note opposition.

For an illustration of my point, see Ben Rogers' new Platform article. Negativity doesn't really communicate any new "big" idea.

[James Maskell]

As that sentence you quoted said "you have to say what you would to correct the situation". That isnt just criticism, its a way of turning it into something positive since you say how to change it. It defines what you would do as well as what you wouldnt do since you are showing a solution to the problem.

[James Hellyer]

James, I dealt with that point!

"you have to say what you would to correct the situation".

It's still a narrow argument that defines you solely in opposition to the the government on that issue. It does not communicate any larger vision. You're still primarily defining yourself by what you're not and what you disagree with.

Look at Ken Clarke, all he's done in his campaign is bash Labour. That's not communicated any vision or contributed anything new.

[James Hellyer]

James, I dealt with that point!

"you have to say what you would to correct the situation".

It's still a narrow argument that defines you solely in opposition to the the government on that issue. It does not communicate any larger vision. You're still primarily defining yourself by what you're not and what you disagree with.

Look at Ken Clarke, all he's done in his campaign is bash Labour. That's not communicated any vision or contributed anything new.

[James Maskell]

If he doesnt bash Labour, who does he bash...the Conservatives?

[James Hellyer]

Is this a sponsored missing the point?

Yes, they can criticise Labour, but that's not all they should do. Anyone can do that. Michael Howard did that very well. But he couldn't sell or convey a positive vision, despite saying what was wrong and what he would do to correct the situation.

Labour didn't win in '97 by just bashing the government. They also laid out their own positive, inclusive vision of Britain and sold that.

They looked like a government in waiting. We look an opposition. I want out potential leaders to sell us their vision and sense of direction. If it's just about bashing Labour we might as well stick with Iron Michael.

[James Maskell]

Ken Clarke has given a positive solution to the problems. Look at his speech recently on public services. He criticised the situation as it was. He then gave his view, explaining it and setting a vision. What more can he do?

If he wasnt bashing the Labour Party, hed be bashing the Conservatives own policies and thats not going to be popular at all with MPs or the members.

[James Hellyer]

False dichotomy alert! The choice is not between bashing Labour and bashing the Conservatives.

You can offer a a vision for the future without descending to rubbishing other people.

The whole point is that ANYONE can rubbish Labour, but the leadership contest is the ONLY time we'll get the opportunity to pick between different visions of where the party and country should go.

Bashing Labour doesn't communicate that. All Clarke's speech on public services communicated was an absence of vision. It was an argument for the status quo.

The only other vision he's offered can be best described as delusion. In his governance speech, Clarke alleged that Tory sleeze under Major was just a Labour spin...

There's no bigger picture there. No direction. Just Blair bashing.

[Rob]

"At the last election, we set out what we didn't like about the current government, but we didn't set out a positive and optimistic view"

Didn't we? What about "The British Dream"? What Howard's "I Believe" statements? Our election broadcasts were pretty positive too (certainly in comparison to Labour's).

I'd assert that we set out a positive agenda, but because the public still didn't like us, they weren't listening.

That's why if any one candidate can show themselves to be likeable, as judged by the general public, that shouldn't be written off or dismissed as unimportant, even if that in itself isn't a deciding factor.

[malcolm]

I did suggest that Liam should compare his ideas with Labours so it's not all negative.Blair and Brown have however proved time and again sadly that negative campaigning works.
Whether you like it or not James Clarke campaign of attacking Labour has been far more high profile and in my opinion successful than the campaign of any other candidate.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"You can offer a a vision for the future without descending to rubbishing other people."

Perhaps James H you could spend one day offering a vision for the future of the Conservatives without descending to rubbishing Ken Clarke.

[James Hellyer]

"Didn't we? What about "The British Dream"? What Howard's "I Believe" statements?"

They were ditched long before the election. The British Dream in particular showed promise, but it was another strategy that Howard didn't stick to.

"Our election broadcasts were pretty positive too (certainly in comparison to Labour's)."

I thought they were overwhelmigly negative and grievance based - like the campaign itself.

[AnotherNick]

Future policy wise Fox is way ahead of Clarke, but I'm not sure I see Fox as Prime Minister.

One wonders how many of the yet to declare are anti-Davis and just waiting to see who emerges as the best challenger. Hard to believe there are many who haven't made their minds up.

[James Hellyer]

"I did suggest that Liam should compare his ideas with Labours so it's not all negative."

But that's still missing the point that this campaign is the only chance the candidates have to set out the general direction they want to take the party and country in. You can't really point to the future solely by complaining about the last eight years.

"Whether you like it or not James Clarke campaign of attacking Labour has been far more high profile and in my opinion successful than the campaign of any other candidate."

Only his Iraq speech garnered a lot of press coverage. Everything else has been pretty low key, despite it bashing Blair.

[AnotherNick]

Our campaign was massively negative. Who on earth thought that

"How would you feel if a bloke on early release attacked your daughter?"

was a better heading than:

"We will provide 40,000 extra police officers" (the actual policy)

Now which makes you think this is a party worth voting for?!

[James Hellyer]

"Perhaps James H you could spend one day offering a vision for the future of the Conservatives without descending to rubbishing Ken Clarke."

Oh look, Daniel is completely ignoring the point I made so he take a cheap shot. What a surprise.

If you'd paid attention, you'd have read that I didn't rubbish Ken Clark, but suggested that his campaign had no overall direction beyond Blair bashing. He has to do more than that to show he can lead the Conservatives back into government.