It is as you’d think: a sea of news coverage and commentary about Liam Fox’s departure.
Some of its currents are merciless, such as the Mirror’s front cover. Some are more
circumspect, such as an excellent pair of articles by The Spectator’s own Matthew Parris (£) and Charles Moore. But, on the whole, there is a strange absence of finality about this
story. A Defence Secretary has resigned – and rightly so, I think – but we still cannot be completely sure why. Maybe it is just the “appearance of impropreity,” as Philip
Stephens puts it, that killed this Fox. Or maybe there is something more poisonous waiting to emerge
in the next few days. The dots are still being connected, the knots of Adam Werritty’s business dealings still being untangled.
So there is more to come – and it’s worth paying close attention to two particular threads. The first is, of course, the outcome of the official investigation into Fox, released early next week. All signs are that this will be an unforgiving document, yet the question remains as to whether it will paint the departed Defence Secretary as foolish or as something worse. And there is the question, too, of whether it will lead to a wider inquiry that goes beyond Fox and into ministerial conduct in general. That is certainly what Labour are calling for, happy to be out of power for once.
And then there’s the defence establishment’s reaction to Philip Hammond. This consumate numbercruncher has not been transferred to the MoD to ruffle feathers, but there is a chance that he might do so anyway, without even trying. The strategic defence review was, after all, a fraught process – one which satisfied no-one, but which was slowly, carefully being put into action. As today’s Guardian makes clear, there are some who would have preferred continuity for this process, who would have preferred Fox to stay even despite it all. If they were to start taking more regularly to the newspapers, then Hammond could have an even greater struggle on his hands than he imagined.
Comments