Down With Progressive Interventionism

I don’t have an opinion about the Syrian civil war. But I must say that I’m rather enjoying the UK political fiasco surrounding parliament’s refusal to drop bombs on Syria. Because all the politicians who don’t represent me (and don’t want to represent me or smokers like me) have been getting a lot of egg on their face.

Alan Duncan, David Gauke and Steve Webb failed to return from holiday to support the Government, angering the Prime Minister, according to sources.

Justine Greening, the International Development Secretary, and Mark Simmonds, a junior Foreign Office minister, claim to have not realised that voting had begun as they were in a meeting. Commons officials said the explanation was baffling as it “would have been clear” that a vote was happening.

Kenneth Clarke also abstained after being given permission for “logistical family reasons”,…

“The Prime Minister is pretty angry,” said a senior Tory source. “This vote had a three-line whip and no, they didn’t all have permission to miss the vote.”

So David Cameron can’t control his own party, and has been weakened. I can only say that I’m utterly delighted. After all, it’s not as if he represents me or anything.

Lord Ashdown, the former Lib Dem leader, said he felt “ashamed” and “depressed” about the failure of politicians to support action. “Call me an old warhorse if you wish but I think our country is greatly diminished this morning,” he said. “The special relationship with the US is seriously damaged, and Britain is now more isolated.”

No, it’s not the country that has been diminished. If anyone has been diminished, it’s all the aforementioned politicians, including Lib-Dem peer Paddy Ashdown – who doesn’t represent me either.

And it’s not as if Labour’s Ed Miliband has come out of it any better. (Did I mention that Miliband doesn’t represent me?) Commentator Dan Hodges has left the party in disgust:

Whatever your view of last night’s defeat for the Government over Syria – for what it’s worth mine is it was a catastrophe for the cause of progressive interventionism – there is no avoiding the fact that it was a triumph for parliamentary democracy.

I certainly hope it was a catastrophe for “progressive interventionism.” Because I’ve had “progressive interventionism” up to here. The smoking ban is a piece of  “progressive interventionism”, and the more catastrophes it suffers, the better. If I ever get the chance, I’ll throttle “progressive interventionism” with a rope, and bury it under rocks.

Nor is it a triumph for parliamentary democracy, as EUreferendum points out:

What happened on Thursday, therefore, was a minor miracle, and although the vote went the right way – in accord with public sentiment – that does not mean, as Ambrose Evans Pritchard would have it, that this was “a momentous day for British democracy”. It rested with a mere 30 Tory rebels voting with Labour and another 31 Conservatives who failed to vote.

Largely, as Autonomous Mind points out, it was an aberration, an artifact brought about by a toxic combination of a weak government, party politics and timing. Given only slightly different circumstances, the vote could easily have gone the other way.

What this is all about, I suspect, is a lot of unpopular politicians looking for ways to direct attention away from themselves, and towards something else. And what’s better than a war to do that?

And so Spain’s unpopular Rajoy has kicked up a row with Britain over Gibraltar. And unpopular president Obama sees in Syria an opportunity to burnish his tarnished image. And unpopular UK prime minister Cameron, and unpopular French president Hollande, both want a piece of the action. And in Argentina unpopular president Kirchner is rattling the sabre over the Falkland Islands.

A plague on all their houses. None of them speak for me.

About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Down With Progressive Interventionism

  1. Junican says:

    I suspect that there is a much bigger agenda at play. I suspect that the TOP ARISTOCRATS want the Islamists to become the Government of these countries – Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc. The reason being that, once they are actually in charge, then they will find the government of countries a damn sight more difficult that their simplified understanding was when they were blowing people and places up. Also, they become subject to UN pressures and Treaty pressures, and, perhaps most important of all, Trade pressures.
    The only weird thing about this proposal is this: “Why didn’t the USA help Al Quaida to take over the government of Afghanistan?” Perhaps the answer to that question is just that the particular people in control of Al Quaida were unacceptable. Now that Osama bin Laden is gone, maybe A Quaida is ‘respectable’.
    All quite laughable really.

    • Marvin says:

      Junican, they don’t want them in government, they are being used as fighters to topple governments the USA does not like.
      Al Qaeda was set up by the CIA in the 1980’s to topple the (russia friendly) government in Afghanistan and install a pro-usa one.
      The same is true in Syria today, the US/UK supply the money and weapons, the Saudis provide the Wahabi islamic terrorists.

      The bigger picture we can only guess at, maybe it’s to destroy Syria first (Irans ally) which will then make the war on Iran easier to “win”.
      Maybe its the USAs intention to control the whole of North Africa and the Middle East and therefore most of the worlds oil supply, in order to destroy the Chinese economy.

      • margo says:

        Yes, that’s more or less my view too – a long-term plan that started with Iraq in 1991. Nothing else makes any sense. The minute Obama mentioned chemical weapons as his ‘red line’ you could be certain that chemical weapons would be used, and lo and behold they have been. We’ll probably never know quite by whom and how.

  2. wobbler2012 says:

    I find Ashdown’s comments disgraceful, the war mongering old goat. If Ashdown had to send members of his own family over there you can be sure the prick will have a completely different outlook on it.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Im still waiting to see independent autopsies on these supposed 1428 dead bodies Owebummer keeps wagging the tail on! I think its been hype from the very beginning and a likely needed coverup for something else going on. Why would I so deeply mistrust the governments of all these countries! The answers are obvious,THEY ARE PATHOLOGICAL LIARS!

  4. Marvin says:

    It’s great to see the UK public not being conned again.
    11% for, 89% AGAINST, despite being bombarded with lies, false flags and pro-war propaganda by the MSM. No wonder they want the Internet censored!!!
    Saying NO to the US government is a game changer, now Obama is back pedalling and promising a vote in congress, while France has been elevated to their new “best friend” :) I wonder how long it will be before the UK public susses the lies and propaganda surrounding cigarette smoking.

    Anyway, here’s “Gorgeous George” kicking ass in the HoC….

  5. Bucko says:

    “Progressive Interventionism” – I’ve never heard that phrase before but it just filled me with a sense of dread.

  6. Philip Neal says:

    25 August: “The UN Security Council has called for immediate access for UN investigators on the ground in Damascus”, Downing Street said in a statement.

    26 August: Western officials were unimpressed with Syria’s decision to allow in the UN experts…”too late to be credible”.

    Where on earth did this ‘crisis’ come from? On Sunday it was a UN matter, on Monday it could not wait for the scheduled return of Parliament on 2 September, and a week later Matthew d’Ancona, in the Sunday Telegraph, rails that the public preferred “Peace Butter to Missile Margarine”. It seems that some people feel cheated of their prey, and I am as delighted as you are, Frank.

  7. I think this chap spells out the agenda, more-or-less correctly, leading up to the vote. Here’s why Cameron and Hague (globalist puppets like Obama) wanted military intervention in Syria.

    Syria were on the ‘list’ after 9/11, along with Iraq, Libya, etc., to incorporate the few genuine (non-Rothschild-controlled) banking systems into the global fold of fiat banking. Gaddafi, of course, was planning an Africa/Middle East-wide gold dinar to supersede the US dollar for oil deals, so he had to go quickly.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Kerry: US now has evidence of sarin gas use in Syria, says ‘case is building’ for strike

    So now they claim to have proof,from whom did this manufactured late to the discussion evidence come from……….Owebummers buddies at the UN perhaps! No independent proof will ever exist!

    This is an admission they didn’t have any proof to start with…………….

    • nisakiman says:

      This all smacks of the ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ that they invaded Iraq over. Having invaded and toppled Saddam, it was “Oh, sorry guys, no WMD, but he was an asshole anyway, so that’s ok…”

      I don’t know how many times they can get away with stuff like this, but the fable of the boy who cried wolf hovers on the horizon. We could be in for some seriously nasty and difficult situations a bit further down the line as a result.

  9. raven921 says:

    Not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet or not but I saw this yesterday.I think if we’re talking about Syria it applies.

  10. Junican says:

    The world is going crazier and crazier. The Russians and Chinese are supporting a Capitalist Puppet and the Americans are supporting Terrorists. How weird can it get? (Apart from Tobacco Control, of course).

  11. Pingback: Syria & the Return of Liberal Interventionism | azizonomics « Olduvaiblog: Musings on the coming collapse

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.