Why does everyone hate Liam Fox?

Does everyone hate Liam Fox? It's certainly a question that dear ol' smiley Liam's been asking. Apparently we're within our rights- what's left of them- to enquire as to exactly what it is that we pay him to do on our behalf, but the poor little man doesn't feel comfortable with the degree of hatred that is being engendered, over his extra-curricular slight of hand.

Do we hate him? Is he right to feel so affronted? And, if we do hate him, could there possibly be any due cause for such extreme emotion?

I'd say that hatred is pretty much rammed up tight, at one end of the emotional spectrum. So, it could be argued that it shouldn't be tossed around quite so freely as is currently the case. I offer, in support of my contention, these thoughts: is Marmite really a deserving recipient for that, heart-felt emotion, hatred, or are we instead debasing the language, simply in order to sell a few more jars of a brown, yeasty substance? Brussel-sprouts, a tad bitter upon the pallet, might leave a bit of an after taste, a difficult odour to immediately dispel from the kitchen; but, on the other hand, pretty good with roast potatoes, served with the protein of your choice of a winter Sunday afternoon. Should they not be to your particular taste, hatred is not really the appropriate default emotion, is it? Dislike is surely as extreme as it ever needs to get.

General Pinochet, frail, doddery old man, who had a predilection for draping himself in medals that really didn't belong anywhere near him- misguided, maybe in need of some sort of care? But add to the equation the fact that he embraced the role of spiteful dictator, under whose rule thousands of innocent Chilean people were systematically slaughtered, and the choice becomes instantly far more clear. Probably, everything considered, hatred is the very best- perhaps the only- emotion upon which to draw. Only another tyrant, shackled with his or her own blackened soul, could even pretend to feel any other way about such a monster. Hatred simply has to be the sane choice.

Should consequent death lessen the degree of hatred? Well, I suppose that might depend upon whether you read the Daily Mail, or whether large numbers of your own family featured amongst the thousands who simply disappeared. I, for one, am quite comfortable with my choice.

Thank you wstera2

In order to develop any sort of emotional response regarding Liam Fox we'd first have to look at the sort of stance that he has taken up in our society. We could choose to factor in that, "shared burden," bullshit that Cameron puked out just a short while back.

Examples might include, Bed-blocking and the newly christened idea of Empty-nest Homes. This being the contention that some of our older generation are essentially living in homes that are far too large for them, with several, sometimes un-brim-full,  rooms that might otherwise be occupied by larger families. On the one hand, and as a purely mathematical exercise- beans and jam jars- this might even work. On the other hand, how will it be affecting those who are to be displaced? Perhaps more pertinent to the 'Liam Fox argument', how will this process be affecting those who are keenest to push forward the idea? If the answer is, 'not one iota,' then, I would suggest that this is another point against Mr Fox.

Interestingly (and typically disingenuously), the Daily Mail refers to the hypocritical bigot behind the idea as left-leaning. In reality, and in his defence, I'm sure that Angus Hanton is just one of several very, very rich people, with a vice-like grip when it comes to any form of sharing, who is thus not in the slightest bit leftward-leaning. "Do as I say, not as I do," I think sums up this sort of 'much heralded wisdom' from the well-to-do, on the extreme right.

A second point, again referring back to the somewhat clouded, 'we're all in this together,' government contention, might be the issue of income taxes, and who pays what. Remember that Mr Fox is an active part of this coalition drive. Now, I haven't even bothered to research Mr Fox's position, but I am confident in my contention that he has yet to question his own chancellor regarding the man's tax status. And the evidence suggesting that Osbourne doesn't pay taxes quite like the rest of us is about as irrefutable as it gets. Maybe this is a second point against the 'respect Mr Fox' argument.

Highly pertinent in the, 'are there enough homes to go round?' aside, might be the second, third, fourth or fifth, home ownership issue. Where do Mr Fox and his cabinet colleagues stand on this prickly subject?

For my own part, I have just the one home, acquired through a quarter of a century of accumulated interest payments. Well, it would be just plain greedy having any more, wouldn't it? A mortgage taken out when a home cost roughly what one would expect to pay for, say, a home, before the so-called investment buyers chose to routinely excrete upon the rest of us. Thanks for that, and a special thanks must also go to the BBC, working its little socks off to reignite that outrageous property prices boom, by ramming the market down our throats throughout the day, every day.

Special thanks to Michel Banabila

There had been a time when I was left with little choice other than to rent. And when I say "rent" I mean rent at a price whereby I was still able to afford the 'luxury' of food and heating; always a bonus at the end of the week. There was even a means, all of those years ago, by which one could ensure that the rent was fair, but I'm guessing that this secret little sanctuary has long-since been well and truly knobbled, by our lords and masters. Can't have that old spanner, 'fairness', interfering with such a vital thing as market forces, can we?

With this in mind, let's ponder a moment upon the idea of a cut in housing benefits; another change that Mr Fox seems more than happy to endorse. As I understand it, we are currently in the process of asking the poorest in our society to choose between:
a) Making up the grossly overpriced rent, out of money that might otherwise have been put aside for the purposes of eating, or
b) Being evicted and ending up in an even more cramped and poorly heated box room, or possibly just out on the street.
Let's hope that Mr Fox and his millionaire buddies are ahead of the game, in not permitting these individuals to adversely affect the official unemployment figures. Another point against, we might argue?

So, I would say that, on the whole, there are probably more reasons to dislike (and the extreme end of this stance would necessarily include 'hate') than to like Mr Fox. You see, for me, the recent shenanigans regarding Mr Werrity are almost entirely irrelevant; what real difference is one more alleged crook going to make to the smooth running of the UK gravy train? I was already more than comfortable with my emotional stance regarding Mr Fox, long,long before this particular issue raised its ugly little head.

Whether it's hatred or just a passionate dislike- the good thing is Mr Fox- that at least we're engaging in the political process, in just about the only way we're still permitted to, by despising everything that you stand for. Isn't that all part of being in a democracy?

Should we ever stumble upon such an unlikely happenstance of living in an actual democracy, then I'll let you know.

Bye, for now, and don't forget to wrap up warm.

Don't Lose Your Right to Vote.

There it was, almost snuggled, amongst the usual array of rising bills, advertising paraphernalia and plastic bags requiring discarded clothes for the recently made homeless; another government endorsed misinformation letter. "Don't Lose Your Right to Vote," was emblazoned across the front of the envelope. I would imagine that, far and wide, the length and breadth of this 'fine' country, similar (essentially junk) mail is currently landing upon countless doormats.

Thanks to stuartpilbrow

As I recall, graphic accompaniment used to take the form of a concerned young man, whose mouth had been replaced by a closed zip. Powerful stuff! And right he was, to look so concerned. I couldn't swear to it but, I have been led to believe, that the presence of the young man's image was recently challenged in the high courts, when it was, I am reliably informed, successfully argued that the voters' mouths had effectively been zipped for rather longer than was deemed healthy for a genuinely aspiring democracy.

Having wasted far too much time communicating with 'my own' MP, it pains me to contend that the cause has most definitely been so thoroughly lost as to be decades beyond farce. Maybe you believe yourself to be slightly more fortunate than myself, in not having a stuffed jacket as your MP- truly, a dead office plant with a blue rosette could have been elected here- but I would urge you to notice that its still pretty much the same precipitated excrement raining down in your neck of the woods.

Ask yourself this: "If everybody I know feels the same way about parliamentary expenses and bankers' bonuses, why is it that a general election appears not to have changed a thing?" I will tentatively venture that, should your vote ever come to represent such overdue possible change, then it will be so swiftly removed as to leave burns upon fingertips. Thus, it really doesn't matter whether you vote, just can't be bothered or already (and correctly) don't see the point, because your vote has long since been completely nullified. It's your (so called) Council Tax that they're after, you fools.

Much thanks to shakestercody

Here's a thought: maybe, if all of the powerless masses completely boycott the next general election, thus removing the last vestiges of pretended accountability, something far more useful will grow to fill the vacuum. If the vacuum is already there, why not acknowledge it as such and see what happens? Just a thought.

The 'free' press will undoubtedly rush to concoct a cover story; what else would we expect from those millionaire's play things. The police and the army will, quite naturally, be entrusted with the 'keeping of the peace', until an alternative is safely in place. Maybe there will be an emergency coalition, just until order is restored you understand; a 'benevolent dictatorship', of some sort or other, I would imagine. And who better to administer this stop-gap government than those with the experience to keep it running smoothly?

Christ! Now I'm really beginning to scare myself! Pass the arsenic, someone...