Now another BBC bore on. Apparently it's significant Fox said he'd support the government in his resignation statement.

Peter Bone reckoned taking outside advice is good. Because Werrity is a world expert on defence. He was an expert on health a couple of years ago.

Now another BBC bloke telling us how Fox "loved his job".

And parrotting the "£35bn black hole" bollocks. See here:

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/def ... stion/4482



The BBC are a fucking disgrace. I am complaining about this.

Complaint sent off.

Tim Montgomerie reckons Fox remains a "considerable figure". On this evidence, I wouldn't trust him to tell me if the car he was selling me had dodgy brakes.

Even Trevor Kavanagh isn't being fobbed off by Fox here.

Why is everyone so sure no-one's gained from all this? Given what we've seen, I wouldn't be too sure there wasn't money in a bank account somewhere? Or a promise of a future sinecure "directorship"?

Fuck me, Fraser Nelson just implied it would have been OK if Werrity was funded by Tory donors.

He wasn't picked up on this by the BBC. Next question was "is it easier for Cameron if it's Fox's own decision?" Like that's even clear.

Jim Murphy, apparently a rising star in the Labour party, is giving a feeble interview about "blurring" etc.

Those "blurred" conditions exist for a reason. And Fox knew exactly what he was doing.

Now Norman Smith of the BBC is swallowing the "worried about destablilizing the forces in Afghanistan" bollocks.

He did follow that up with some mildly worded suggestion that Fox might have worked out he wasn't going to get away with it.

If soldiers were bothered about this, wouldn't it be for very good reasons that it showed their "boss" was a dodgy cunt? So the destablizing wasn't some unrelated passive process, was it?

Gavin Esler asks Peter Luff (defence minister) if he'll miss Liam Fox.

How about asking him if he knew what was going on with Werrity?

And assumptions that Fox has played a blinder. Like it's undeniable that nuclear weapons are good value for money.

That is like saying civil servants on the frontline give a toss about the minster responsible whilst most wouldn't be able to tell you.

They're now touting Phillip Hammond (the man who wanted to know why trains don't stop for cars at level crossings) as a replacement.

Cameron's cabinet is hardly a team of all the talents, is it?

_________________
Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening, no doubt, no awakening.

Hammond's done reasonably well overall in safeguarding capital expenditure on rail. He's like Frank Pick compared with Alistair Darling. Hope he doesn't move.

Fuck me, there's an advert for a programme called "Newswatch"! It asks: has the BBC been pursuing Liam Fox on the basis of innuendo?

They need a programme about their shit reporting today. Even Charles Moore has just said Fox's answers weren't satisfactory.

To be fair to Charles Moore, he made the point (no doubt from the opposite angle to me) that the defence policy hasn't been the great success it's made out to be.

Defence cuts, while at the same time committing to more foreign wars. Hardly coherent, was it?

Translation: If I keep my head down, Dave's promised me he'll slip me back into the Cabinet in a few months' time.

He apparently doesn't want any other job but defence.

Or was that guff the equivalent of a footballer kissing the badge?

"Kissing his ring" more like.

_________________
That subtle admixture of the absurd and the surreally plausible...

Isn't David Laws due back?

Perhaps Hammond moves to Defence, Laws to Transport after all he was one of Cameron's favourites apparently.