If the final run-off looks likely to be between Davids Cameron and Davis, tomorrow's race is all about Clarke versus Fox. There is unlikely to be much direct competition; likely Clarke supporters are unlikely Fox supporters and vice versa but they are in a close battle to survive tomorrow's first round. If one survives tomorrow with an impressive number of supporters and either of the Davids underperform they have a (small) hope that their momentum might see them overtake the faltering candidate.
Clarke is essentially fighting for MPs who would otherwise vote for David Cameron and Dr Fox is trying to secure the support of Eurosceptic, social conservatives who might be tempted to abandon David Davis. In the number of public declarations Ken Clarke has a narrow 24 to 22 advantage. Dr Fox has not received as many Cornerstone votes as first expected but undecided MPs might be waiting to see how the candidates fare before today's hustings, in front of the whole parliamentary party.
Most of the work is now behind-the-scenes with candidates meeting MPs one-to-one. Until Thursday the news media plays a secondary role. Eyeballing is the name of the game for the time-being. Nonetheless, yesterday I noted Ken Clarke's eleventh hour public pitch for support on BBC1's Politics Show. Liam Fox was on last night's Westminster Hour making, perhaps, his last public appeal for support.
Dr Fox attempted to counter Andrew Rawnsley's suggestion that he was the candidate of 'the right'. He said that such terms weren't very enlightening anymore. He suggested that his campaigning against domestic violence, for better care of the mentally ill and for human rights to be at the heart of Tory foreign policy were hardly knee-jerk right-wingery. There should be no 'no-go areas' for Tories. Oliver Heald, a Clarke supporter in 2001, and Gary Streeter, who Dr Fox described as on the 'left' of the party (those terms must still have some currency!), are both supporting Dr Fox's leadership bid and he deployed them as an attempted proof of his broad appeal. Dr Fox warned that it was vital that the party remained a broad church. If we didn't maintain coalitions inside the party we would have to start building them with outside parties, he said.
There is the truth - and there is the media. Fox is being substantially misrepresented - either that or ignored by the media - and yet he is, despite all of that, making good solid progress. If the Cameron madness can be seen for what it is - see my comments under FT4DC - the Fox trot will run on to victory.
The terms right and left wing change their significance over time. It used to mean where you stood on the trade unions until the 1990's Two hundred years before that, a left winger was a supporter of Adam Smith - someone who believed in private enterprise. That was feared by established wealth who were then the right wing. Since then the two wings of the 'argument' have merged.
At this point in history I'm not certain anyone knows for sure what right wing and left wing mean any more - but anyway the media have decided in their ultimate wisdom that a social reformer such as Fox is a Right Winger.
Well done all you clever media people! Everyone is so grateful to you for explaining it all so well. BTW I've just cancelled my subscription to the Economist. There's more common sense to be found in www.conservativehome.com and payment is voluntary!!!
Posted by: henry curteis | 17 October 2005 at 10:22
Henry,I think Liam is not really being misrepresented by the media just not being covered at all.
It does seem to me that it his parliamentary supporters who are sometimes attacked.It is those supporters who are Liams weakness.I'v been suprised that no senior MPs have chosen to back him. Some of the new intake may prove to be good but they are an unkown quantity at the moment.Some of the Cornerstone MPs are regarded as the kiss of death by many on this blog,what they are thought of by the general public I really don't want to think about!
Posted by: malcolm | 17 October 2005 at 11:21
It is of course predictable that New Labour's friends in the media are trying to smear Fox as "right-wing". They don't want a debate with him, because he is the most confident of the four candidates when it comes to challenging the left's spurious monopoly of compassion. Instead, Labour's friends want to shut the debate down. Fox better than any of the other candidates understands that the left's love of the public services is all about low politics, not compassion: building up a big public sector payroll vote, endlessly ratcheting up tax, and controlling ordinary people's lives by denying them choice and quality within the state sector.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | 17 October 2005 at 11:52
In today's (October 17th 2005) 'Man of Substances' Times - Lord Rees Mogg states his belief that both Conservative MP's and Conservative Members will select David Cameron.
The reason he gives is that Conservatives hope that in Cameron they will find a winner - the hope based on his competent Blackpool speech, and massive newspaper coverage of the fact he refuses to deny the use of hard drugs. LRM concedes that David Cameron's policy platform is rather bare - and in fact no one has much idea of what he does actually stand for.
I would like to challenge the assumption that Cameron is a winner in the making. First newspaper/media coverage can make anyone look like a winner for a fortnight. When, as is the case here, it is so plainly orchestrated with the whole of the media simultaneously blanking all other candidates, and failing to mention any policy issues at all, the genuineness of this media fawning is hardly credible. It is well known that the media are fed 'narratives' which they are expected to follow if they wish to be considered favourably for news releases etc. The narrative for this pre-choice fortnight is quite clearly 'dump Davis, balnk Fox, promote Cameron'. It seems that even Ken Clarke is party to the 'promote Cameron' orchestration. Why LRM believes that Conservative MP's or Party Members will observe the media narrative quite so easily, I am not sure.
The point LRM made was concerned with the electability of Cameron. Why does he so easily follow the media lead on this? Cameron is a toff - a privileged public school background. He has a toff's voice, and he has toff's attitudes, however hard the media have tried to obscure thse recently. The modernisers agenda is to some extent correct. The Conservatives need to look more normal, more everyday and less privileged. How will Cameron caome even close to meeting this specification - backed up by Osborne, Soames, Letwin and others. This lot are the ultimate turn-off for the floating, Labour-abandoning voter.
LRM does state that Fox is the most underestimated candidate. His image is exactly right for a modernising agenda. His social reforming policies are spot on. His willingness to face up to EU corruption too is exactly what appeals to Conservative MP's and voters. I won't attempt to make forecasts and I admire LRM's bravery in that regard, but I question his political savoir-faire. Fox has more of the makings of an ELECTION winner than Cameron.
Posted by: henry curteis | 17 October 2005 at 11:59
Liam Fox is the most right wing of the candidates. It was Liam Fox who suggested that Hayek's thinking should be used in all areas of political life ( dubious assertion at the best of times). It is Dr Liam Fox who has made isues such as abortion, immigration and opposition to gay marriage the centrepiece of his campaign. It is Dr Liam Fox who seems to think that membership of the EPP is a central issue for the modern Conservative Party. This is not media misrepresentation. This is fact.
Posted by: Disraeli | 17 October 2005 at 12:00
It is Dr Liam Fox who has made issues such as abortion, immigration and opposition to gay marriage the centerpiece of his campaign.
What rubbish. Dr Fox answered a question on abortion that Amanda Platell asked him as part of an interview. He has also answered follow up questions from that interview by other journalists. By no stretch of the imagination is this the centerpiece of his campaign.
The same is true if opposition to gay marriage and immigration - both of which have barely merited a mention, and then in response to direct questions.
It is Dr Liam Fox who seems to think that membership of the EPP is a central issue for the modern Conservative Party.
When did he say it was "a central issue"? Oh, he didn't. You made that up - like all of your dubious assertions. He said that it mattered that we did the same in the EU Parliament as we said we were doing, and that we should make new reforming alliances.
May I also assume that you dismiss David Cameron as extremely right wing for appropriating this policy?
This is not media misrepresentation.
No it isn't. It's YOUR misrepresentation.
This is fact
Clearly your definition of "fact" is "something Disraeli made up".
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 12:09
You know Disreali, that shortly you will be accused by Liams supporters of at least 'smearing' him if you call him rightwing or if you are unlucky you will be told you've 'demonised' him!
Posted by: malcolm | 17 October 2005 at 12:12
Thank you for that typically constructive contribution, Malcolm.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 12:16
"Liam Fox is the most right wing of the candidates."
Yes, and David Cameron is arguably the most left-wing of the candidates but I haven't seen people constantly branding him left-wing.
"It is Dr Liam Fox who has made isues such as abortion, immigration and opposition to gay marriage the centrepiece of his campaign."
Did his stance on mental health and an ethical foreign policy completely pass you by? These have been much more high-profile principles of the Fox campaign than immigration and opposition to gay marriage, neither of which I can recall having seen or heard mentioned by the Fox campaign. And which other candidate was it who, for once offering something closely resembling a principle, declared his desire for more support for marriage?
"It is Dr Liam Fox who seems to think that membership of the EPP is a central issue for the modern Conservative Party."
Liam Fox has never said this is a central issue. And one of the other candidates has adopted this approach as well - who was that again?
"This is not media misrepresentation. This is fact."
See above.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | 17 October 2005 at 12:17
If you think the Cameron victory bandwagon has no wheels you can make a lot of money laying him at the bookies...
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | 17 October 2005 at 12:19
The Conservative Party electing an NHS doctor as leader would be a political earthquake and take the party on to Labour's moral high ground. So of course the Party won't do it! As a Tory teacher I find the Labour Party cringe when I am debating in the council chamber-they cannot gainsay experience. Has the (Parliamentary) Party forgotten that it is public services which Conservatives are weakest on and which come top of voters' concerns always? It seems so.
Cameron's drugs policy, as far as I understand it, is the same soft, failing New Labour one which has police, government and social workers sending mixed messages.
What is really worrying for British democracy is that a youthful image, one good speech and a lot of hype can suggest a man is suitable to be our country's PM. Everyone says change, but to change without learning the real lesons of past defeats and failures is pointless.
Posted by: Frank | 17 October 2005 at 12:22
"Liam Fox is the most right wing of the candidates. It was Liam Fox who suggested that Hayek's thinking should be used in all areas of political life ( dubious assertion at the best of times)."
If so, Winston Churchill must have been right wing because he used up much of the post-war party print ration to re-print Hayek's "Road to Serfdom". Hayek's "Constitution of Liberty" is reportedly one of Margaret Thatcher's favourite books. Being admired by the country's most successful Prime Ministers of the 20th Century is a major recognition of Hayek's enormous contribution to freedom. Liam Fox is in excellent company.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 17 October 2005 at 12:36
It's a pleasure James.If it has annoyed you it's all been worth it !
Posted by: malcolm | 17 October 2005 at 12:36
Just a point of clarification really. There have been various comments made in the press - most recently Jackie Ashley in The Guardian today - saying that Ken Clarke was state school educated. As far as I am aware Ken Clarke attended Nottingham High School, a fee paying, independent school and always has been. Might be a trivial point but wonder where this misconception has come from?
Posted by: James | 17 October 2005 at 12:38
It's a pleasure James.If it has annoyed you it's all been worth it !
It's not hard to see where the Nasty Party tag comes from...
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 12:38
Coming from you old boy,I'll take that as a compliment!
Posted by: malcolm | 17 October 2005 at 12:43
"Jackie Ashley in The Guardian today - saying that Ken Clarke was state school educated. As far as I am aware Ken Clarke attended Nottingham High School, a fee paying, independent school and always has been. Might be a trivial point but wonder where this misconception has come from?"
Lack of research or her husband Andrew Marr?
Posted by: Selsdon Man | 17 October 2005 at 12:44
It was Liam Fox who suggested that Hayek's thinking should be used in all areas of political life ( dubious assertion at the best of times).
I am mesmerised to learn that you regard enthusiasm for Hayek's work as signifying being 'right wing' - you know, there a few High Tories out there who still regard the good Professor as a Liberal. Or to quote a Tory author who may perhaps not have figured greatly on Dr Fox's reading list, 'The Road to Serfdom expressed the resentments of a dispossessed Liberal. So far from being conservative, it was designed to achieve Socialism's ethical objectives without resorting to Socialist methods.' And then there's Hayek's own excellent essay, 'Why I Am Not A Conservative', which it perhaps would be advisable to take at face value. Right wing, then? Maybe not.
Since you've opened up this fascinating topic, though, let's hear more. Which bits of Hayek's thought do you suppose David Cameron, or even Kenneth Clarke, particularly opposes? Do tell.
Posted by: Michael Smith | 17 October 2005 at 13:27
Fair point Mr Smith. But the truth is that Hayek's work has been co-opted by those on the right of the Tory Party. If anything, this shows the intellectual incoherence in Dr Fox and the right of the Tory Party that they try to marry the thinking of Hayek with extreme social authoritarianism. Hayek did, after all, espouse "movement for movement's sake" and, as you correctly suggest, write an essay entitled 'Why I Am Not A Conservative. This does not sit easily with Dr Fox's views on other areas of policy.
Posted by: Disraeli | 17 October 2005 at 13:40
"It is Dr Liam Fox who has made isues such as abortion, immigration and opposition to gay marriage the centrepiece of his campaign."
It's a bit silly to say he's made these issues the centrepiece of his campaign. We all know however, that his opinions on these subjects are in line with the mainstream of the Conservative Party.
"It is Dr Liam Fox who seems to think that membership of the EPP is a central issue for the modern Conservative Party."
David Cameron obviously agrees with him on this.
Posted by: | 17 October 2005 at 14:02
If anything, this shows the intellectual incoherence in Dr Fox and the right of the Tory Party that they try to marry the thinking of Hayek with extreme social authoritarianism.
What "extreme social authoritarianism"? Surely you can't be referring to social conservative positions that are far from authoritarian? Those ideas are not about preaching and telling people how to live, but rather encouraging people to live lives that free them from dependence on the state. That's liberating people, not subjecting them to the state's authority.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 14:09
"Those ideas are not about preaching and telling people how to live, but rather encouraging people to live lives that free them from dependence on the state."
What about opposition to civil partnerships? If that's not preaching about how to live lives, then I don't know what is.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 17 October 2005 at 14:13
What opposition to civil partnerships?
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 14:15
I think abstentions speak for themselves. In addition he told the Telegraph a few weeks ago he had "big reservations" about civil partnerships.
Posted by: Henry Cook | 17 October 2005 at 14:23
Abstentions do not speak for themselves - unless you're saying that David Cameron also opposed civil registation of partnerships due to his abstentions. As you well know frontbenchers in particular often miss Commons votes due to their other duties.
Moreover, Dr Fox did not say he had "big reservations" about civil partnerships, but rather about gay marriage, which is a different thing. I don't see Cameron, Clarke, Davis, or Blair for that matter, arguing for them.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 17 October 2005 at 14:32