If I had a vote in today’s ballot of Tory MPs I’d be voting for Liam Fox. I think he deserves to progress to the final stages of this contest although I fear that the list of public declarations suggests that his campaign will, unfortunately, end within a few hours, or on Thursday.
Here are my reasons for endorsing Dr Fox today:
Liam is an authentic Conservative. He believes in lower taxation but knows that tax relief can only be part of a wider ‘prosperity agenda’. He takes an uncompromising approach to crime and drugs. He is a principled Eurosceptic and has confirmed this Euroscepticism with a commitment to disentangle Tory MEPs from the Old Europeanism of the EPP. A party led by Liam would be built on the rock of these core Conservative commitments but it wouldn’t stop there.
Liam understands that the core beliefs, described above, and which have characterised conservatism since the Thatcher years, are not enough. Both Liam and David Cameron have embraced the And Theory Of Conservatism and its belief in a more compassionate politics. Liam’s idea of mending the ‘broken society’ was unfairly characterised as gloomy by yesterday’s FT. But for many people - who can’t afford to read Companies & Markets - life is pretty grim. Ignoring the real problems in British society may be an option for a newspaper that caters to a dwindling number of metropolitan readers but it cannot be an option for a political party that aspires to govern for the whole nation. Liam’s heart for the socially excluded – particularly for victims of domestic violence and the mentally unwell – could drive the socially just conservatism that could transform the electoral prospects of our party.
Liam is a hawk in the war on terror. The world has always been full of evil men but, as Peggy Noonan wrote some time before 9/11, it is gravely dangerous today because of the relative ease with which those men can get hold of portable weaponry of devastating power. Dr Fox understands this risk and the need to pre-empt the danger that rogue regimes – like Saddam’s Iraq - will feed international networks of terror. He has stood firm on Iraq throughout his brief time as Shadow Foreign Secretary and he could rebuild the Conservative Party’s relationship with the White House that became so sour during Michael Howard’s leadership. I hope he would use that renewed relationship to combine the USA’s commitment to technology-driven environmentalism with the sense of urgency that Europeans bring to this vital issue.
Liam believes in party democracy. He was late in declaring his opposition to the planned disenfranchisement of party members – perhaps out of loyalty to his friend Michael Howard – but he eventually came out in favour of an electoral college. An electoral college falls well short of the open primary, mass connections system of party democracy promoted by Theresa May (and latterly by Francis Maude) but it is better than that offered by his rivals for the Tory crown. David Davis supports a role for members in the first round(s) of voting but believes that MPs, and MPs only, should make the final decision. David Cameron hasn’t declared his view. Ken Clarke’s leading backers first called for the rollback of party democracy and then fell silent when they realised that their man had little chance of prospering amongst Tory MPs.
Liam is pro-life. An in pro-life I’m not just meaning he opposes abortion and euthanasia. I mean his commitment to defend the right to life and liberty of everyone. For Dr Fox a pro-life philosophy includes better care for the mentally ill but also those people in faraway lands whose human rights are abused. Right-to-die campaigns are gathering pace in Britain and Dr Fox, whilst upholding freedom of conscience on these issues for the parliamentary party, could help public opinion to see how a right-to-die easily becomes a duty-to-die. Liam’s willingness to raise the issues of abortion and human rights has a wider significance to me. I doubt focus groups advised him to talk about reducing the number of abortions (nearly 200,000 in Britain last year). The fact that he still did shows he has the courage and authenticity that British politics needs after the spin’n’squander of the Blair years.
The online poll run by conservativehome suggests that I’m in disagreement with 82% of my readers. All I can promise is that I’ll keep my opinions to the Editorials and Good Week, Bad Week features and will attempt to keep the news postings as free of bias as humanly possible. There are, of course, concerns as to whether Liam Fox is experienced and substantial enough to be Tory leader. I have sympathy with those concerns but they apply to David Davis and David Cameron, too. Ken Clarke is undoubtedly up to the job but I struggle with his record on Europe and his opposition to the liberation of Iraq.
Is it me or does DD sound exactly like Kilroy?
Posted by: James Maskell | 18 October 2005 at 17:43
You like to make an issue of Cameron's involvement in Black Wednesday.
Not of his involvement in Black Wednesday, but rather his political judgement that Britain should re-enter the ERM.
And the memo wasn't for Lamont - it was political advice for the PM.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 18 October 2005 at 17:44
Cameron just finished. Nicely done. Open about charming Clarke supporters. Said thanks. Nice and easy.
Posted by: James Maskell | 18 October 2005 at 17:45
I may be wrong but it looks to me like this result rules out any tactical voting in the third round. Clarke supporters could go anywhere but are most likely to move toward Cameron or Fox so surely Davis can't afford to mess around with his dwindling votes?
Posted by: RobD | 18 October 2005 at 17:47
Nick Robinson talking up Cameron - what a surprise.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 18 October 2005 at 17:47
I don't particularly want to vote LibDem now, but when the tories vote more for Fox over Clarke, you have to wonder if the Conservative party really is in terminal decline. For me, it is truly shocking.
Posted by: Mark | 18 October 2005 at 17:48
Mark, the reason Clarke is out is because Cameron took his natural voters, not because of Fox. Shouldn't you wait to see who Clarke backs and why before running off to a left wing party?
Posted by: RobD | 18 October 2005 at 17:52
Result shows a slight bias towards the so called right - 104 DD/LF v 94 DC/KC. it looks like DC will get highest vote in second round - can DD hold off LF?
Posted by: Ted | 18 October 2005 at 17:57
Yes but more mps voted for Fox than Clarke. You know as well as I do that the dream final 2 were Clarke and Cameron. Now DC is undoubtedly going to win. This is a man with no experience, crumby catchlines and already a question-dodger before he's even become leader. Oh great.
Posted by: Mark | 18 October 2005 at 18:04
Cameron just finished. Nicely done. Open about charming Clarke supporters. Said thanks. Nice and easy.
For once I have to agree with you - he did so much better than the wretched Davis, who sounded smug and arrogant as usual, with that stupid reference to tactical voting. Please, please, please let it be a Cameron / Fox membership ballot!
Posted by: Michael Smith | 18 October 2005 at 18:06
I totally agree with the editorial. Dr Liam Fox is exactly the right candidate to lead the party at this critical time and I have confidence that he would make a great leader of the opposition and a PM. He is in tune with the nation and a real no-nonsense compassionate conservative. He should win. I urge all Tory MPs to see sense and vote for Liam. David Cameron is too new and without any substance and we cannot win with just youth and style. Davis is ok for the party but I don’t think the country will vote for him. He lacks charisma as shown by his conference speech. Whoever wins this contest should put all candidates in his shadow cabinet for sake of unity, talent and strength. We can win Fox. He has been underrated. Salam
Posted by: abdul salam | 18 October 2005 at 18:06
Cameron doesn't appear so much to be "left-wing", as has been alleged, but rather a pragmatist, like Blair, who is willing to adopt whatever policies he thinks will be popular.
This has been the approach the government has taken for the last 8 years and I, personally, have had enough of it.
Posted by: John Hustings | 18 October 2005 at 19:24
But still, you're keen to hold it against him. We're talking about events in 1992. We could dredge through all the candidates' pasts and find dodgy bits - especially if we're allowed to go 5 years before they stood for parliament.
And frankly, I think it's quite an achievement to have the ear of the PM at 25.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 18 October 2005 at 20:37
But still, you're keen to hold it against him.
It's either illustrative of his principles or his pragmatism. Either way I don't like it.
And frankly, I think it's quite an achievement to have the ear of the PM at 25.
One shared by any number of CCO staffers or special advisors.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 18 October 2005 at 20:46
With the ERM and Cameron thing, hes providing advice here not taking drugs at Uni. This is a whole different animal. Hes giving advice to the Prime Minister. That means he has the ability to effect change which would affect the entire country. This isnt just about doing a bit of wacky backy at a Uni party. This is about Britains economy. His age is irrelevant here.
Posted by: James Maskell | 18 October 2005 at 20:59
Fox cannot beat Brown.
Posted by: Howard Telford | 18 October 2005 at 21:33
Yes he can.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 18 October 2005 at 21:38
"But more fatal, probably, was his recent tenure in CCO. Doing Howard's dirty work over eg Flight did him no credit with the hardline Eurosceptics or taxcutters."
Having worked hard at his job as Party co-Chairman is a disadvantage for Fox?
Regarding the "dirty work", Flight was (in my own personal view) an arrogant and annoying idiot, illustrated again by popping up in the media bleating repeatedly about legal actions after he had already and finally been removed from the candidates' list. Meanwhile many of us were trying to use the Bank Holiday weekend to campaign in our target seats, while confronted with damaging wall to wall coverage...
The Flight saga *did* show the need for Party reform, however - by which I do not mean centralisation, but the establishment of flexible, responsive constituency organisations that recognise that modern politics moves at the pace of the 24hr news media, and not at the pace of next month's meeting. Many meet this challenge already, but a few currently do not, and we should keep on striving to do better as a Party.
Posted by: Richard Carey | 18 October 2005 at 21:50
James, I dread to think what you were like before 10 years of mellowing.
Posted by: Mark Fulford | 18 October 2005 at 22:46
I am as constant as the Northern Star ;=)
Posted by: James Hellyer | 18 October 2005 at 22:55
Quote:I find some of these postings quite odd and worrying. Finally the Conservative Party has a serious candidate for power from the public services-an ex NHS doctor. This should resonate in a party which has failed to address public services properly in the last two elections. This is one of the major reasons we have lost not being too "right wing." Instead we are sleepwalking to a Tory toff. You could not make it up! ....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
that is what worries me too
''...Instead we are sleepwalking to a Tory toff...''
why can't people see it if Conservatives really want to be elected?
As someone from B'ham, I would like to see someone without a southern accent as leader of the Tories and so would many voters...
yes, it's a psychological advantage, so many can't be bothered to study the actual details, voting records and listen carefully to speeches and read as much as possible about the potential leaders...
... we have to face it...sadly so many of the population don't read much and depend on soundbites...
so a northern accent can help..
his experience in the N.H.S. is invaluable...
I just feel he speaks for the ordinary person like me...
Posted by: Marion Burdon | 19 October 2005 at 09:12
Go Liam!
The only reason why Fox isn't leading is simply because the fashion is blowing in Cameron's direction at the moment. If people really looked at Fox and what he's said they'd see that his conference speech had substance and weight, compared to the literary effects of Cameron.
I'd rather have a politician who is prepared to say what he thinks and can articulate it intelligently, rather than another Blair who is all things to everyone. Better to be principled than merely popular. The voices of scepticism have already started with Alice Miles in the Times today "Harry and his half baked ideas"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1058-1832007,00.html
Posted by: Fiona Pinto | 19 October 2005 at 14:44
The Conservatives Against Cameron's NewLabourisation/Stop Cameron blog has now endorsed Liam Fox as well.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 19 October 2005 at 14:54
Quote:I'd rather have a politician who is prepared to say what he thinks and can articulate it intelligently, rather than another Blair who is all things to everyone. Better to be principled than merely popular
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, that's what I've noticed too. (In the difference between Cameron and Fox)
I suppose in politics, some voters are going to be 'politically correct' ;)
rather than going by their deeper convictions... :(
Posted by: Marion Burdon | 19 October 2005 at 15:39