On 12 Oct 2011 at 2:12am Voter wrote:
Zebedee - So I guess that's as close to an apology that you're able to make, after such a full-on dismissal of my simple and respectful query as to whether your post made sense. I don't think your poor typing WAS an insignificant error on your part, because it rendered your post non-sensical.
So I'm afraid I still don't understand your dismissal of givEitarest's post. You say that moaning about constituency boundaries is legitimate if FPTP is in operation. But then you say that we don't have (wrongly spelt) FPTP in operation, but surely we do? Or am I missing something with "my tiny brain"?
That is why I posted a query as to whether your post made sense. What a waste of my time; all I've learned is that you're quite rude and aggressive, that you apparently have trouble using your mobile phone properly, and that you disagree with virtually everyone on this forum.
Perhaps you might consider going back to school yourself?
On 12 Oct 2011 at 8:51am Hedley Lamarr wrote:
Thanks Voter for continuing the thread. SQ - I had better get off the marginal fence! Yes, the Fox scandal does stink to high heaven (although your inference that the whole security of the country is at stake is a little over the top). What I was saying was that sleaze has always been here and I wholeheartedly condemn it all - from whatever party! Is that good enough SQ? Sleaze, by its nature transcends party politics - its a symptom of the human condition.
On 12 Oct 2011 at 9:08am Mart wrote:
Wrong thread. But still, so HL, does your condemnation stretch to Fox being sacked?
On 12 Oct 2011 at 10:07am Southover Queen wrote:
HL, I wasn't implying that the security of the country was at risk in this instance, and had in fact said that explicitly earlier on in the thread. What I said (or what I meant, which may be different!) was that anyone who holds the position of Secretary of State for Defence must understand that s/he has very privileged access to extremely sensitive knowledge. That very position must mean that s/he understands that not only must s/he be squeaky clean in all his/her dealings but must be shown to be so. My point isn't that Fox has compromised the security of the nation but that he has shown himself to be quite unable to grasp the responsibilities he now holds.
On 12 Oct 2011 at 11:42am Voter wrote:
It does seem incredible that an intelligent, trained doctor can be so dazzled by power. You could understand how some of the hapless New Labour ministers had no idea what they were doing in power once they had to begin doing real jobs for the first time in their lives, but Fox doesn't have that excuse.
On 12 Oct 2011 at 12:37pm Clifford wrote:
Interested that you think being a minister is a real job, Voter, whereas being an advisor to a minister is presumably not in your eyes.
On 12 Oct 2011 at 4:17pm Voter wrote:
That just about sums up my opinion, yes Clifford. Minissters are responsible for their decisions and actions, whereas my friends in the business suggest strongly that many political advisors just try to keep their noses clean and remain in everyone's good books, so that they too can end up as ministers in the future.
Few New Labour ministers even worked as advisors to ministers anyway, due to their 18 years in opposition.
On 12 Oct 2011 at 4:26pm bastian wrote:
paul is very quiet,is there a tory gag on this subject...must be avoiding an edmunds scandle, you know, keep the rural backwaters silent sort of papers passing around parliment.
On 12 Oct 2011 at 4:34pm Clifford wrote:
So, Voter, on that basis, do you think the Tory and Lib Dem ministers have shown much sign of knowing what they're doing?
On 12 Oct 2011 at 4:35pm Kettle wrote:
He always goes off radar when he can't wriggle off the hook.
On 12 Oct 2011 at 6:41pm Phfellow2004 wrote:
My understanding is that a Minister can appoint any number of Special Advisers as he likes but their names are placed on the record. What puzzles me is why Liam Fox did not routinely name Werritty as a Special Adviser in 2010 when he became Defence Minister or before when he was in Opposition?
All Ministers must be surrounded by Senior Civil Servants and Police/Special Services people and so Werritty must have hit the radar years ago. If he was a risky chap, he would have been told to push off by Fox and others and this whole 'Foxhunting' matter would have never surfaced. But it has and so this suggests to me an agenda by some, whether they are the current Opposition or others within the Conservative Party, who wish to ditch Liam Fox. Werritty may not be the man the press are trying to make of him nor Fox and so challenging Ministerial propriety may be the best which comes out of all this!
On 12 Oct 2011 at 10:35pm Voter wrote:
Well Clifford, i think that those Tories who have been used to serious careers outside parliament are experiencing less of a culture shock at the responsibilities and complexities than the schoolboy/girl-PPE student-Special Advisor- MP path followed by so many Labour people and some others.
That's why I expressed my surprise at Dr Fox's naivety...
On 13 Oct 2011 at 9:56pm Deelite wrote:
Up to now Fox has been protected. Now he's not. He is the hunted. Defense: dangerous job in times of cuts. When you make enemies it's war.
On 13 Oct 2011 at 10:03pm Zebedee wrote:
Voter. You have misread my post. If you read it again you might interpret it correctly this time. It is simple and pretty obvious, but it's probably best if you read it slowly.
On 13 Oct 2011 at 10:54pm Voter wrote:
Nope. Still no idea what you were on about. Clearly you are superior to me, and probably everyone else on this board too.
But I'll stick by my assertions at the top of this thread, and also now realise just how much more enjoyable this board has been when you were not posting for 48 hours or so.