Talk:Nick Harvey

Comments on Inconspicuous Absences

I should firstly indicate that I am far from being a political whizz. Nevertheless, there a few intriguing points about this article which may be worthy of some type of comment (within the article):

1) There's no mention of Nick Harvey having been removed from his post as Minister for armed forces. More important than this fact would be any superficial reasons (if any) provided by the government as to why he was removed.

2) A cynic might observe that there is a correlation, and possibly a causal connection between Nick Harvey's having “voted against the Government's decision to renew Britain's nuclear deterrent, Trident” (together with other views aired in public or private that may 'jibe' with that voting decision) and his subsequent removal from the post. It would be interesting for anyone who has had their eye on the ball in relation to his post as to when he voted/indicated his anti-nuclear position and when the first signs of his removal started to be aired (even though it is the prime minister who makes the ultimate decision – though, presumably, under advice from his aides/guides who might have inadvertently made their person biases clear). The potential point of interest is this : Nick Harvey backed nuclear disarmament and was thus deemed dangerous to the Government's own policies on maintaining nuclear arms (whatever your position on disarmament, it should have no relevance to how likely the causal connection is).

3) Nick Harvey is meant to have admitted that there was no 'exit strategy' for Libya (Citation 5) BUT would it be fair to him, within the article, to indicate that he must have been under some political pressure to have British involvement within NATO to begin with (the idea that he could have somehow unilaterally decided to bomb Libya is self-evidently preposterous) - in a manner that would have made it difficult/impossible for him to realistically organise a timetable for hostilities/pulling-out.

Would it be fare to indicate within the article that Nick Harvey was acting in this precarious position (of not having any timeline for when the military involvement of British forces in relation to the Libyan conflict would end) only grudgingly after those in power made the decision to involve Britain in the Libyan conflict.

Simply put, it was not HIS fault that there was no exit strategy. I could pour out more points, but the above is enough for now. AnInformedDude (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically anything you add in this line must be supported by sources. If it has been widely reported that Harvey was removed from this role for the reasons you suggest, then the article can reflect that. If, however, Harvey left his role quietly and without comment in reputable sources, then no. If you are drawing together facts and drawing conclusions, then it's original research, which is not allowed. Wikipedia is not the place for comment or investigative reporting. Rankersbo (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

PS. sorry to not comment on specifics, I haven't had chance to read the stories, but if the sources say X (probably) happened , you can put X in the article, but if based on the facts in the sources lead to the conclusion Y probably happened, you can't put Y in the article, unless Y is absolutely screamingly and indisputably obvious. Rankersbo (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Expenses

He claimed expenses for attending Rememberance Day. This will remain posted for all of 5 minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.43.149 (talk) 09:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)