X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

In defence of Liam Fox

10 October 2011

10:20 AM

10 October 2011

10:20 AM

The feeding frenzy over Liam Fox tells us a great deal more about what is wrong with the
Conservative Party than it does about Dr. Fox. The Defence Secretary has been an ass. He admits that he allowed “distinctions to be blurred” between his “professional
responsibilities and [his] personal loyalties to a friend”. But if someone has known you and counselled you and worked for you over the years it is all but impossible to maintain such
distinctions when you are in power. You just have to cut them off, brutally. Fox’s biggest weakness, and one which was well known before this, is that he is too kind. You might say he is too
human. It made him a good doctor. But in the higher echelons of politics or business it is a fault. Against that, Fox is brave and highly principled. He is also unswervingly personally honest
— a point which incidentally, albeit tacitly, is assumed by his harshest public critics.

What can be said against him is that, as Defence Secretary, Fox has played his full part in cutting Britain’s defence establishment in a manner that he would not have envisaged when in
Opposition, and which he must surely know in his heart is wrong. This is, indeed, a serious matter, far more serious than who he met on a trip to Dubai. Perhaps he should have resigned when told to
make defence cuts. But he is ambitious and he did not. He is also historically in good company. In the early 1970s, Margaret Thatcher (along with Keith Joseph) subordinated her instinctive
convictions and stayed in office, while Edward Heath embarked on a collectivist economic experiment whose disastrous effects she would spend years later having to repair. She hung on and she saved
Britain.

This Thatcher connection goes beyond the circumstantial parallel. Liam Fox is, in fact, the only recognisably Thatcherite Conservative in the Cabinet. He places a Scottish libertarian imprint on
her philosophy, but despite all pressure to do so, he has never wavered in his belief that her years in government provide a model to restore Britain’s fortunes. Moreover, Fox is not a Right
Wing dullard. He is clever, articulate, funny, presentable and popular, at least outside Westminster, and if he, rather than David Davis, had squeezed into the final round of the leadership contest
with David Cameron he could well have won.

[Alt-Text]


And the modernising faction, who controls the party today, cannot forget this. Fox is dangerous to them. If Cameron were to fall, Fox, not Osborne or some other malleably plastic figure, could take
over.

Hence the cat and mouse game played by No. 10. Whether it would be better to keep him, weakened and humiliated, and so biddable (like poor William Hague), or whether it would be better to discard
Fox altogether, must be the primary question in the leadership’s mind.

But the leadership should be careful. Randolph Churchill coined the phrase “the Eden Terror” to describe the fear that Anthony Eden’s irascible whims imposed on the party and the
Tory press. Terror is unstable and Eden’s rule proved fragile. The recognisably acrid smell of fear is perceptible now. No one, it seems, will speak out for Fox, because no one wants to
displease what are assumed to be the unexpressed wishes of No 10.

So Tory MPs face a choice. This afternoon and in succeeding days those in the parliamentary party who do not wish it to be turned into a social liberal party without roots, traditions or a sense of
national destiny ought to speak out. And even the party managers might be advised to have second thoughts. If conservatism — on Europe, immigration, tax, marriage, law and order and much else
— is finally seen to have no place at the top of the party, many with conservative views and instincts may go elsewhere. History shows that it is remarkably easy to lose elections.

Robin Harris is a former member of the Conservative Research Department and Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit. 

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close