Liam Fox is getting a reputation for being an American neocon. That is the conclusion of those who have watched him take hawkish positions on Iraq and socially conservative positions on abortion. His 'broken society' message also has strong similarities with George W Bush's compassionate conservatism. All this is music to this blogger's ears but it is unclear if it will help him with British voters. Ken Clarke certainly doesn't think so and, on Sunday, warned against importing Republican politics into Britain. There have been rumours that Liam Fox might back Ken Clarke if his own campaign fails to prosper. These rumours partly reflect unsubstantiated suggestions that Liam Fox and David Davis are hostile to one another. When Dr Fox was Tory Chairman and David Davis was fighting to keep his marginal seat of Haltemprice and Howden, Dr Fox hardly gave Mr Davis a ringing endorsement. "He's got matinee-idol looks, but we'll have to see," was all he could muster. A Clarke-Fox alliance would almost be incredible, however, given the two men's very different views on Iraq, abortion and Europe. Alice Thomson uses another argument to try and dampen speculation. "His fiancée, Jesme," she writes in The Telegraph today, "is the medical director of the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. She told her future husband that she thinks that Mr Clarke is peddling death by promoting British American Tobacco."
Dr Fox is in Washington DC again this week. Four Tory MPs were spotted by my Washington mole accompanying the Shadow Foreign Secretary on the latest stop of Fox Tours: Phillip Dunne, Brooks Newmark, Mark Harper and John Penrose. Dr Fox was speaking to the Heritage Foundation and my mole described his performance as "charismatic". Dr Fox's remarks focused on China. He noted how China had been cuddling up to Iran and Zimbabwe. In both cases economic self-interest has been motivating China's actions:
"China has indicated it would not support taking Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme. Chinese firms are active in Iran in fields as diverse as dam building, steel mills, oil refineries and car manufacturing. In the medium term, China has plans to build pipelines between Kazakhstan and China passing through Iran. A real worry is that good Sino-Iranian relations also mean Chinese support for Iran's nuclear energy programme and Iranian access to improved ballistic missile technology...
"Beijing's decision to prop up the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe may seem odd. Yet Zimbabwe has vast mineral and precious metal deposits which China covets. For that reason, China has financed Mugabe's new presidential mansion, supplied fighter aircraft and radar systems to Harare and generally kept the regime solvent when others have stepped backwards."
China's economically self-interested relations with dubious regimes make it a highly compromised and unreliable member of the UN Security Council. The oil-for-food scandal exposed the extent of Russian and French commercial interests in Iraq. Whatever labels his detractors try and stick on him, Dr Fox is bravely exposing the great weakness at the black heart of the United Nations. It's a weakness that makes the UN an ineffective guardian of our security.
Clarke and Fox? Doesn't really sound plausible. Although I wasn't aware of that "matinee idol" comment (Ed- do you have a net ref for that?)
But the Doc is certainly doing an energetic job shining light into some murky foreign corners. Although he hasn't quite worked himself up to "the black heart of the UN". Good phrase though.
Anyway, glad to see Andrew Mackay's done the right thing this morning...
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 20 September 2005 at 08:58
Ah...I've found it myself: Telegraph in April ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/29/nelec329.xml )
"Who does he think will win or lose their seats? The Liberal Democrats have targeted several senior Tories for their "decapitation" campaign. "Theresa May will keep her seat," he says. "So will Oliver Letwin. David Davis's seat is problematic. He's got matinee-idol looks, but we'll have to see."
In Woodspring, they love Dr Fox. "He's a normal bloke, he likes a drink in the pub, he likes his CD collection, he went to state school, he used to date pop stars," says one of his helpers. "He's just Right-wing. Most of us are around here - he'd bring back flogging if he could."
When I tell Dr Fox, he doesn't dispute this analysis."
Come on Doc...you wouldn't really fit with Ken, would you.
Posted by: Wat Tyler | 20 September 2005 at 09:07
Its quite interesting to note that the so called right - wingers from this contest have both come from fairly underprivileged backrounds, while the one nation tories all come from middle and upper class backrounds.
Perhaps, in discussions about social justice and help for the most vulnerable, we should actually consider listening more to those who have actually been there, rather than from those who have read about it in a consultation paper!
Posted by: Peter | 20 September 2005 at 09:56
"Perhaps, in discussions about social justice and help for the most vulnerable, we should actually consider listening more to those who have actually been there, rather than from those who have read about it in a consultation paper!"
I'd imagine a consultation paper might draw on the experiences of more than one of the most vulnerable, so would probably be just as, or more, valuable than relying on the personal experiences of one person?
By all means let's do more to engage with those deemed the most vulnerable, but I don't think we need to hold it against potential leaders if they weren't born in to poverty. If we go down that road, we might as well just hold a Primary on the Easterhouse Estate!
Posted by: | 20 September 2005 at 10:20
Sounds like (yet) another bold speech from Liam. I am looking forward to reading it in full. His speeches continue to raise the tone and quality of this leadership contest.
"Neo-Con" is a good all-purpose smear word isn't it - banishes the need for any substantial thinking, which is presumably why Ken Clarke likes it so much.
Alice Thompson's article today contained good examples of further smear-attacks. DD, apparently, "is always going to be authoritarian", whilst Liam Fox allegedly thinks that "immigration and abortion are two of the most critical issues facing the country."
Britain's broken society has been the domestic theme of Liam's campaign. He has identified our high abortion rate as but one symptom of that, confirming his views when asked about them, and has scarcely mentioned immigration at all (I have heard him give 2 speeches now, & I don't think he raised the issue in either of them - or in the questions afterwards).
What was interesting about Alice Thompson's article, though, is that, as a Notting Hill Tory, she accepted that Cameron's campaign is now in fourth place - like William Rees-Mogg in the Times yesterday. Will DC last to the Party Conference, or will he have wound up by then?
The Davis Dash and the Fox Trot have already been identified. What's the KC equivalent: the soft-shoe shuffle?
Posted by: Simon C | 20 September 2005 at 11:16
"The Davis Dash and the Fox Trot have already been identified. What's the KC equivalent: the soft-shoe shuffle?"
If you believe some of the nonsense spouted by Kenophobes, any move to Ken could probably be labelled a 'Lefty Lurch' or 'Lefty Leap'...
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 20 September 2005 at 12:07
How about the Clarke Creep?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 20 September 2005 at 13:52
Simon: according to MORI, immigration is one of the most critical issues facing the country - so even if Thompson was right that it was Fox's focus, it's hardly a devastating criticism.
Posted by: Blimpish | 20 September 2005 at 16:00
Blimpish,
Agreed that immigration is an important issue - what I was objecting to was the glib and shallow attempt to caricature what has been a serious considered and wide-ranging campaign.
Posted by: Simon C | 20 September 2005 at 16:09
Taking a neutral standpoint for a moment:
When it comes to a leadership election what we want to see is candidates setting out their personal views and priorities for the country. We've debated the future of the party for too long, what we want to see is what will a candidate do as leader and as potential PM.
I must say I'm impressed by Liam Fox's approach to these. In talking abortion, human rights abuses and English parliament he is taking policy by the scruff of the neck and giving everyone a clear idea of his position.
By no means do I agree with him on everything and as is well known on this blog my preference is for David Cameron, but I feel Fox has given an honest account of what he believes in and what he will stand for, in the process addressing areas of policy that have perhaps not received the attention they have been due in recent times. As a leadership contender Fox has provided us with the substance required to show he has a vision for the future and those who decide to vote for him, know what they will be getting.
Posted by: AnotherNick | 25 September 2005 at 19:20
AnotherNick, you've managed to concisely sum up why Dr Fox is my preferred candidate. I find that there is compelling authentiity to him. He's not afraid to speakm out on issues like abortion, even though you can see on this blog such a stand wins him as many enemies as it does friends.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 25 September 2005 at 19:26
Dr Fox's appearance on today's Sunday AM is available online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/#
As is the transcript:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/sunday_am/4280084.stm
Andrew Marr specifically asked Dr Fox about abortion, noting that Ken Clarke had disapproved of the subkect being raised. Dr Fox replied that
"I think it's very clear that I've held these views for some time. And I think people have responded to this in one of two ways. People have said well we don't like what you say, you've no right to say it, which I think is ridiculous.
Or people have said we don't necessarily agree with what you say but it's good to hear politicians actually telling us what they believe.
This is an area in our politics in Britain which is about individual, MPs making up their minds, it's not a matter of party politics, and it would remain that way. But, you know, when I've got a strong view on something I'm going to say what I think.
And I think that we've got far too mealy-mouthed politicians in this country telling people what they want to hear, rather than what they themselves believe."
Posted by: James Hellyer | 25 September 2005 at 19:49