Thursday, March 13, 2014

Another Bizarre Labour position

One of the more extraordinary exchanges at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday was when Labour MP John Woodcock, who voted for the Labour amendement in the debate on Syria, suggested as you can read here that "Britain's failure to intervene-in Syria is shameful."

In text language, WTF?

I can respect those who look at a situation and say consistently all along that there is no possibility of military intervention being anything other than a disaster. That is my position on Ukraine now. I have less time for those who appeared to be more interested in tripping up their opponents than on adopting the right policy.

Labour have been arguing that they "stopped the rush to war." I don't know if it is true that they stopped it - because alternative diplomatic avenues to respond to the chemical weapons attack opened up a few days later and I suspect the US and British governments would have taken those options in preference to a military strike anyway - but when it comes down to it, Labour did vote against intervention and it is true that their opposition to military intervention was one of the factors which made it less likely.

So for an MP who voted for that Labour motion to complain now about Britain's "shameful failure to intervene" is a bit like the story of the boy who murdered both his parents and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.


Jim said...

I often find this with politicians of all parties. It would almost be funny to watch it if some of these things were not over matters as serious as this one.

So often i think they would rather "point score" than attempt to fix the problem.

I really would love to go into the and take the job of Mr Speaker. starting with "ok, we are where we are, some things work some things just dont work, I dont give a hoot who's ideas were the good or who's were the bad, we are now where we are, so lets fix it. The next person who tries to lay blame on the party opposite rather than say something useful to help fix the problems is out on their lug hole ok - Right lets start then.

By the way as I stated at the time (but again for the record) I was against military action in syria still am, and I am also against military action in Ukraine too. For once i actually sided with labour on the syria vote, though i think i done it for a better reason then "i must vote against the coalition even if i dont know why"

Chris Whiteside said...

As we managed to get what I think had to be the West's bottom line - effective action to eliminate all stocks of Chemical weapons in Syria and ensure no side uses them again - without taking military action, I was under the impression that nobody still thought we should have launched such an attack.

Mr Woodcock appears to either be saying we should have bombed/invaded Syria, or he thinks David Cameron can wave some sort of magic wand and stop the killing in Syra without invading.

As you say, it would be funny if the issue were not so serious.