Archive for September, 2013



Your move, Mr Obama

This blog holds no brief for the Russian thugocracy led by thug-in-chief Vladimir Putin. But we may have just witnessed what could rank as a top drawer geopolitical equivalent of a chess move.

In matters of international relations, when it comes to diplomatic confrontation with the United States and President Obama, the disagreement has just been shown to be one of men versus boys.

Moscow has shown itself to be home of the men and Washington the playground of the boys.


Putin’s move, if it is accepted by al-Assad, has the capacity to completely wrong-foot Obama and Kerry and undermine their efforts to push for authorisation from Congress for an attack on Syria.  If Syria responds positively Obama will struggle to secure the votes needed to let the Tomahawks fly.

Russia has coolly opened to the door to another way of dealing with the chemical weapons threat the US is using as an excuse to intervene in the country’s civil war.  It is a face saving opportunity for the US to back down and stay out of the Syrian disaster.

We could sum up Putin’s communication to the White House and where it leaves Obama in one word.  ‘Check’.

Cameron’s ‘independent Britain’

An interesting, if unsurprising, finding over the weekend was the result of a YouGov that revealed privatisation of the Royal Mail is just as unpopular with voters as launching a military attack on Syria.

Only 20% of voters questioned support the Royal Mail privatisation (page 10 of the survey).  But one wonders how many of the 70% who oppose the privatisation plan (and the rest who don’t know what they think) realise it is only happening because the EU said it should.  A safe assumption is that it is a very small number.

Once again we see the all-too-living hand of the EU making full use of the power given away to it by the politicians in Westminster.  Despite the party political bitching on the subject and David Cameron’s verbal drivel about an independent Britain, just try finding a politician who openly concedes the origin of the privatisation plan is Brussels and the plan is a direct consequence of the UK being a member of the EU.

While the parties get their little helpers, hangers on, proxies and useful idiots to loudly spread industrial scale quantities of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) by falsely claiming the UK will be adversely impacted economically just by leaving the EU (by conflating that with access to the single market) they are resolutely silent on the real world adverse impacts politically of continued membership, such as Royal Mail privatisation.  And that is the issue.  The urgent need to get out of the EU is a political imperative, which is entirely separate from the economic issues constantly thrown up as a fear-stoking smokescreen by those who see Britain’s place as being ruled forever from Brussels.

The reality is that unlike Norway, a non-EU country but member of the single market, which vetoed the EU’s 3rd Postal Directive (2008/6/EC) the UK cannot opt out of the Directive.  So no matter how many strikes there are by postal workers, how much disruption is experienced by households and businesses, or even which political party a Briton votes for, the UK is stuck with having to obey the EU’s demands.  The Royal Mail will be privatised because the EU has told the UK to do it.  Discussion over.  End of subject.  Case closed.

It is essential that people are not conned into thinking that leaving the EU means the UK has to give up economic benefits of trading within the customs union.  By exercising Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the only guaranteed way of initiating a negotiation with EU bodies, the UK could secure an agreement that maintains the existing trade rules while putting an end to rule from Brussels.  The political and the economic would thus shown as distinctly separate.

The ‘out’ campaign today, and in the future in the event of any referendum on EU membership, needs to focus all attention on the political issue at hand.  Leaving the EU is all about ensuring political decisions affecting the UK are made within the UK by people that only Britons vote for.  At this time there is little benefit to that because the British people have no democratic control over elected representatives.  But the principle is clear.

The EU in its present and former guises always has had and always will have but one destination – ever closer political union.  It was not created for the purpose of free trade, it was not created as a customs union.  It is a simply a political entity.  Nothing else.  That is what we need to leave and that is what we must focus attention on.  The Royal Mail privatisation issue should be used to help people understand what any future In-Out referendum is really about.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel with no sense of shame

After a weekend offline, savouring the rugby and the dubious delights of preparing the garden for autumn, a visit of the news sites reveals the Guardian’s War on Murdoch continues apace.

It is not a battle about media plurality, if it were then the Guardian’s broadcast arm, aka the BBC, would be in Rusbridger’s sights, so overwhelming is its news media presence on TV, radio and the internet.  No, this fight is about limiting the scope and reach of an alternative to the Guardian/BBC worldview and their nasty left wing agenda.

Having done the ‘phone hacking’ story to death, including a number of serious false claims and errors that were played down when corrected; and having managed to ensure the Guardian-connected Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer protected Rusbridger’s brother-in-law, David Leigh from arrest and prosecution – despite his self confessed illegal behaviour in listening to other people’s voicemails – today the Guardian changes tack and marks a new low even for that hateful low circulation rag. using a new proxy.

The employment of Chris Huhne, the disgraced convicted criminal and confessed serial liar, to attack Murdoch, is not just desperate, it is reprehensible.  The BBC shares the shame, kissing the Guardian’s loss-making behind and pushing the story with gusto on the radio this morning.  He still will not accept responsibility for his own actions without heavy caveats and excuses, but the Guardian is delighted to use him as a tool to service its own ends – just like the climate change businesses that are filling Huhne’s pockets with cash in return for advice on how best to corrupt and milk the system.

Inside the parallel universe in which Huhne resides, where inverted morality holds sway and people ascribe responsibility for their actions to someone else, who they then attack for it, it is held that Murdoch and his press are responsible for corroding public trust in politicians.  No, really.  Huhne tries to find an angle for his attack by suggesting the reason why the News of the World put what he tries to describe as so many resources, into proving his affair with Carina Trimmingham, was that he had called for the police to re-open the phone hacking investigation.

So the demise of the saintly Huhne, which began with the exposure of his extra-marital affair (one of many if his children are to be believed) only started because of his selfless desire to aid the Guardian’s noble campaign to nail News International’s impropriety and right some wrongs into the bargain (but not it seems any comeuppance for the Guardian’s David Leigh, naturally).  Then, wails Huhne, the Murdoch press ‘groomed’ his wife into spilling the beans about his criminal act of pressuring her into taking his speeding points to avoid a driving ban.  He bleats that:

The Crown Prosecution Service loves a celebrity trial. It was the end of my political career, and it locked up my ex-wife too. She was just another “burned contact” for the Murdoch press.

Burned contacts?  The Guardian knows all about burning contacts.  Remember how they used then turned on Julian Assange?  Where were they after coaxing a story out of Edward Snowden, then running for cover to avoid prosecution themselves?

As an exercise in self justification and an effort to sanitise oneself, Huhne’s outrageously manipulative piece is an absolute masterclass.  Oh the unfairness of it all.  Sure it was his fault, but…  For a pathological and selfish liar such as Huhne there always has to be someone else to blame.  He refuses to accept the reality that public trust in politicians is not because of media actions, but the behaviour of lying, corrupt and self serving parasites such as himself.  There has to be a conspiracy behind it.  Perhaps this piece may spark something of a reaction from James Murdoch when he reads the following passage:

The wider lesson is a liberal leitmotif: it is the duty of politicians to combat concentrations of power wherever they are, private or public, business or state. Time and again, Murdoch has used his media muscle to bulldoze a way for his business interests. In 2010 he wanted to buy all of Sky, and needed Vince Cable’s approval. His son James even came to lobby me. The implicit offer was: back us, and we will back you.

That is quite some accusation and I’m sure Huhne has evidence by way of a witness or a record of the meeting’s discussion to back up his claim.   Or perhaps he expects the public to take him at his word…?

Huhne of course says nothing about the Guardian’s use of media muscle and its effective editorial control of the BBC and left wing MPs, a much bigger stick than anything Murdoch wields, to force the capitulation of Tiny Rowland after a smear campaign so it could buy the Observer. Then there’s the way they undermined the Conservative government by going after the idiot Neil Hamilton for cash for questions – something he still denies and for which there is a substantial amount of material that suggests that some of the Guardian’s evidence and witness statements were fabricated.

What this all goes to show is that as long as one is happy to preach the Guardian’s gospel by talking up left wing concerns, climate alarmism, attacks on the British entity and identity, or servicing the assault on Murdoch, no amount of criminal activity, viciousness or sickening mindset is enough to preclude anyone from a platform and copious column inches.  It’s a bit like the Guardian saying, that person is a pathetic scumbag, but he’s their kind of pathetic scumbag so he’s OK.

The whole attack on Murdoch, now rejoined by Huhne, is nakedly political and self serving.  It has nothing to do with public interest and everything to do with preserving a liberal dominance of the news media in the UK, where the Guardian (despite its tumbling sales), the BBC and the Press Association work together to push a slanted narrative or exclude stories unhelpful to the ‘progressives’ from the coverage they dominate.  This is the journalism of the gutter, shamelessly executed.

UPDATE:  A Mail hack has kindly done a piece that compares some of Huhne’s self-pitying cant with the reality his deluded mind has tried to airbrush from the record.  It reinforces what a lying, discredited, unreliable, untrustworthy, arrogant and conceited tosser Huhne is.  But the Guardian loves him.

BBC covering up for their friends?

Which of the following headlines do you consider to be the more newsworthy and being of greater public interest?

1. 25% of the population have been victims of a violent attack this year, or

2. 38% of the population are concerned about being violently attacked in the coming year

If a news organisation ran a story with headline one, then changed it to headline two later the same day, people could be forgiven for thinking that the organisation was perhaps trying to tone down the story by diverting attention away from the serious impacts that have been experienced by people and on to a statistic dealing in hypothesis rather than actuality.

The BBC has done just this today, not on the subject of violent crime but on the consequences of rising energy prices, particularly on low income and vulnerable households.

We will never know why they have changed the focus of the story, because any request for an explanation of an editorial decision or the process that led to the change is summarily rejected thanks to the BBC’s broad and routinely abused exemption under the Freedom of Information Act.  But there are some things we do know.

We do know, as covered in the previous post, the BBC is firmly on the side of environmental organisations, indeed any departure from the BBC’s ranks of environment reporters is invariably to positions in such eco groups or to become formal campaigners for such groups.  We also know as this earlier post reminds readers, that environmental organisations are the driving force at governmental level behind the insipid approach to energy policy that is pushing up energy prices to force people to use less energy.  And from the BBC’s survey findings we now have a clear picture of the consequences of this energy policy on real people, who are going without heat in their homes.

The effects of the energy policy going to get much worse.  More elderly and vulnerable people are going to perish this winter and in future winters because the cost of heating their homes has been dramatically increased, with much of that increase driven by direct and indirect levies and taxes demanded by the environmental NGOs, who sit alongside government and make the rules, unscrutinised, unaccountable and unmoveable.

If 25% of people surveyed have already suffered cold homes because heating is unaffordable, heaven knows how bad things will get for them in future years, let alone how many more households will be dragged into fuel poverty by this madness.  Who knows, even the BBC might struggle to conceal the impacts of the actions of their fellow travellers.

Don’t be surprised, this is exactly what is supposed to happen

And so, after publishing a festering pile of distorted and deliberately misleading rubbish that deceives people about the power and influence Norway enjoys by being outside of the EU, but having access to the single market (read how the journalist who did the piece was forced to concede his distortions by The Boiling Frog), the public suffers some more as the BBC rides again … this time with another festering pile of distorted and deliberately misleading rubbish that deliberately conceals the root cause of the suffering being experienced by households across the UK that cannot afford to heat their homes.

This is exactly what was supposed to happen.  The policy imposed on the UK by the EU is designed to reduce energy demand by driving up prices and limiting supply.  It is the same with forcing down demand for water by driving up prices and preventing an increase in supply.  ‘They’ have decided energy use is driving the planet to global warming thermogeddon so something must be done.  So we have to suffer the consequences.

‘They’ are the environmentalist  and sustainability NGOs at work, sitting by invitation at the EU top table as the supposed citizen body representatives.  Given equal weight to that carried by the national representatives they sit alongside, they are unelected, unaccountable and lavishly funded by the political class to lobby and inform or even direct the policies the political class impose upon us.

This is what passes for democracy in the EU.  Self professed ‘experts’ in the field of ‘sustainability’, reversing the positive progress mankind has made over decades to provide affordable energy to heat and light homes in even the poorest households in our society, because they believe the source of that energy is dirty and harmful to the planet and they demand we use less energy in order to accommodate the useless renewable solutions also forced on us as a partial replacement at enormous cost.

These are people who have been given huge power to determine how we should live our lives, without the inconvenience of having to seek our approval via the ballot box for their agenda and the implementation of their deluded and damaging worldview.

So it is that while:

Sixty-seven percent of people said they would support more coal, oil and gas stations being built in the UK if it brought energy prices down.

the prospect of it happening does not exist.  We are in thrall to the eco warriors who would have us living our lives in a de-industrialised society akin to the world portrayed on the US TV drama ‘Revolution’.  But where is the BBC’s analysis about why this is happening?

Heaven forbid that the environmentalists’ biggest and loudest cheerleader, the BBC, should shine a light on how we have been brought here and where we are being taken. Such coverage is not permitted in the echo chamber.

Heaven forbid we should be told how we are governed, who makes these policies, why they make them and that without a fundamental change to our ‘democratic’ structures that we cannot get rid of them.

UPDATE: The BBC has updated its story and the headline, in a typically slippery way.  Instead of focusing on 25% of the population ‘enduring cold homes’, which is a hard hitting fact based upon the survey results, they have changed headline to ‘Heating bills concern 38% of population’, which plays down the consequences of the legislation’s impact.

Obama’s staggering hubris

The sheer arrogance on display from President Barack Obama, in a pathetic attempt at self justification over his stance concerning Syria, is absolutely staggering.

Since last year, Obama has been (in typical American fashion) working to an American agenda on Syria.  His pisspoor attempts to grandstand on heavyweight foreign affairs matters, to compensate for what could be generously described as disastrous performance on the world stage, led to him talking tough to al-Assad and setting a ‘red line’ on chemical weapons.

The Telegraph is reporting Obama’s comment that the world needed to show the Syrian regime that they could not use chemical weapons with impunity.  The paper goes on to explain that Obama defended his assertion that ‘a red line’ would be crossed by the use of such weapons, arguing that he was simply emphasising accepted international laws.  But then Obama elevated himself from President of the United States to self declared spokesman for the entire world when he said:

First of all, I didn’t set a red line.  The world set a red line.

So when I said that my calculus would be altered by chemical weapons, which the overall consensus of humanity says is wrong – that’s not something I just made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air.

My credibility isn’t on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line.

I try to avoid the use of profanity on this blog, but what a load of utter bollocks.  One drawback of being the American President is that a lot of what you utter gets reported.  This can prove rather inconvenient for the President when he takes off on one of his flights of fantastic delusion and denies his own words – which as you can see from his comments last year on this infamous ‘red line’, made on 19/20 August 2012, he has done.  The Washington Post is the journal of record here…

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.

That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.

The use of the Royal ‘we’ to describe the American position, followed by evidence that the red line is his calculus, his equation.  The world didn’t set a red line, Obama did.  He made no reference to speaking for the world, because he doesn’t.

The red line is Obama’s alone.  Therefore it is his credibility that is on the line – and that is why he is now pretending he was speaking for the world, rather than the bubble inside the Washington Beltway.   Obama is telling a naked lie and exhibiting hubris of staggering proportions.  It is the sign of a meglomaniac and someone who is irrational.  Obama was the choice of the American people, but from an external perspective what an appalling choice they made.

The President of the United States has demonstrated he has no credibility.

And it’s no better for the Russians either.  President Putin seems to have developed a serious case of amnesia about countries who launch a military attack on another country without UN approval, as these comments, translated on BBC 10 o’clock news tonight, make clear:

In line with international law only the UN Security Council can sanction the use of force against a sovereign state.

Any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state is inadmissable and can only be interpreted as aggression.

Just to refresh Vladimir’s memory…

Satan’s little helpers – the media’s coverage of Syria

If you have been watching the news and reading the dead tree press in recent days, you may have thought to yourself ‘Is there suddenly a lot more Syrian humanitarian disaster stories?’.

Don’t worry, you’re not imagining it.  The media really is being flooded with emotive, distressing and heart-string tugging stories.  Following the defeated motion seeking to authorise intervention in Syria, the powers that be have pushed for a concerted – and very one sided – campaign of media coverage of the impacts of war on ordinary people opposed to the al-Assad regime, while giving the impression of an escalation in the conflict.

This is the media playing its role as part of the establishment, supporting the government’s agenda in disgraceful manner and trying to make people regret their opposition to military action.  They know all too well it would take a heart of stone not to see the broken and burned bodies in hospital bed and the tide of humanity that has swept across borders in search of refuge, and not be moved to tears and wish for something to be done to end that suffering immediately.  That’s the power of the media.  We can be certain that some people who last week stood opposed to missile strikes against al-Assad’s forces, have since had second thoughts and wish the motion had passed, as a direct result of this propaganda flooding the news outlets.  Exactly what this media blitz intended to achieve.

But think for a moment about what we do not see.

Where is the footage of broken and burned bodies of people from the part of the Syrian population that supports al-Assad and who are under equally devastating attack by the rebels and Al Qaeda?  Where is the discussion of arms caches and the foreign fighters who have rushed into Syria to carry out violent jihad?  Where is the footage of the shiny stockpiles of Saudi and Qatari funded weaponary that has flooded into Syria as part of the effort to topple al-Assad?  Ask yourself why.  Ask yourself if you are really being presented with the full picture.

The media is helping the government to paint the conflict as a one-sided slaughter of innocents by a brutal dictator – in effect to paint it as a genocide – when the reality is the rebels control most of the country and have carried out terrible atrocities of their own.  Such is the evil of war,  But through such imbalance and bias by omission, the media is supporting tactics to change people’s minds and convert them to supporting the hidden agenda that is driving the desire for intervention.  This is the plan to justify the desired military action.

But think about what has not changed.

There is still only ‘confidence’ and ‘high probability’ – not absolute certainty – that the chemical weapons were used by the al-Assad regime.  Many stories are circulating, with information that has apparently come from people in Damascus who survived the ‘attack’, say that the weapons had been supplied by Saudi Arabia and were in rebel hands when detonated accidentally.  We have no way of knowing for sure.  A significant doubt of the US and UK’s ‘proof’ exists.

Most importantly, there is still only the intention of punishing al-Assad but no idea of the outcome or effects of military action.  This alone should preclude us from getting involved, because there is a significant capacity for harming the very people the military would supposedly be seeking to protect.  And of course the spectre of Al Qaeda is not going to go away.  It takes a special kind of insanity to want to launch an action that could significantly enhance the prospects of Al Qaeda emerging stronger and more capable of terrorism once Syria has calmed down.

A US or French or UK action has but one purpose, helping the rebels to defeat al-Assad.  Our government has picked a side and is using the chemical weapon incident as justification for direct involvement using force of arms, rather than providing humanitarian assistance.  There are plenty of conspiracy theories about this desire to be involved, and some very plausible analysis that aims to connect the dots to construct an explanation for it.  Whether they are right or wrong, there is an agenda at play at it has nothing to do with humanitarian considerations.  As such we should have no part in it.

John Kerry’s u-turn – what has changed?

Spotter’s badge for Jeremy Poynton in the comments who links to a powerful blog post over on SayAnythingBlog.

The post shares with readers John Kerry’s 1971 testimony before Congress, where he argued America’s involvement in Vietnam was never about national security, that America lost its sense of morality by bombing villages in Vietnam and most striking of all that America should stay out of internal civil wars in other nations – no matter how bad they might be – because history shows that is the right thing to do.

The post compares these comments with his comments this week vindicating military intervention in Syria.  It lays bare the complete and utter u-turn Kerry has executed since becoming Secretary of State in the Obama administration and part of an establishment that is determined to undertake exactly the same actions Kerry railed against 42 years ago.

What has changed?

It can be argued that as Kerry’s immersion into the establishment has resulted in this change to his worldview.  It is a consequence of iving in the unhealthy political bubble that exists, separated from the realities of life and the views of ordinary people outside the ring of steel that protects the elite.  As such he and his ilk are cut off from all sources of information bar that provided by political advisers and government apparatchiks – who themselves live in the bubble and are therefore susceptible to bias confirmation and reinforcement by other narrowly focused minds.  This structure exacerbates the widening disconnect between the electorate and the political class and is perhaps the reason why the interests of the establishment always seem to be so very different from our interests.

The only way this problem can be recognised, challenged by the people and ultimately corrected is to adopt properly democratic structures.  Increasing frustration among voters suggests people are becoming more receptive to the idea of discussion about this otherwise dry topic. Make no mistake, being asked to vote for MPs, Mayors and councillors every 4-5 years is not the be-all and end-all of democracy.  A measure of a democratic society is the degree to which voters have control and influence over their representatives after they have assumed their seat in a political chamber.

Too many people believe that the act of voting delegates authority to the elected to do what they see fit in our interest.  The fatal flaw in that belief is demonstrated by the existance of the echo chamber described above and the way our interests are consistently trumped by party political interests and the wishes of highly influential individuals and groups who finance those parties.

Increasingly and even more disturbingly, we are seeing governments claim citizen involvement in the governance process because of their inclusion of membership body Non-Governmental Organisations, such as WWF and other environmental and sustainability pressure groups, as equals sitting around the table with elected politicians.

This nefarious state of affairs is highly sinister as the governments choose which NGOs they will embrace and award a seat at the table, give them funding from our pockets and allow them to dictate the rules the rest of us live under.  We have no control over the leadership of these organisations and no control over which organisations are selected to be part of the establishment club.  One member of Greenpeace cannot overturn a campaign direction of travel to ensure the NGO does not push government (such as the EU) to impose highly damaging and hugely costly policies on the rest of us.  This is a theme that will get more prominence soon.

Closing the loop, the issue of John Kerry’s re-programming therefore is symptomatic of a much wider, much bigger and much more dangerous problem with democratic structures, one that need to be addressed if the people are to again be the masters and our representatives and public officials are to be the servants.  We owe it to ourselves to bring about the necessary change.  An excellent starting point are the demands of the fledgling Harrogate Agenda.

Good point well argued

** For many months the civil war in Syria has raged.  This blog has barely mentioned it because it was remote and none of our business.  There was certainly no strategic interest for the UK in involving itself in that vicious religious conflict.  So we make no apology for our saturation focus on Syria in recent days, which has been forced on us by the desire of our ‘servants’ to insert themselves directly into the war on the side of the rebels, despite the overwhelming opposition of the general public.

We have no idea if the photo below is of a genuine Chief Petty Officer of the US Navy, or if it’s just someone playing dress up.  But members of the armed forces both in the US and the UK could be forgiven for feeling such a sentiment (via @NewsNinja2012).  It’s a good point, well argued.

Meanwhile, back in the political bubble, pressure is already building for putting last week’s motion before the House of Commons again, EU style.  It seems until the lobby fodder votes ‘the right way’ Cameron and Hague are not going to let this go.  It’s a reputational and authority affirmation matter now.  And it seems no politician’s legacy is complete without a little war with their name beside it noted for all time in the history books.

It seems the apparent reason for resurrecting this obscene rush to visit violence on the Syrian regime, to the benefit of Al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups in the country, is the supposedly breaking news coming out of Washington, reported by the Telegraph, that:

…the US has evidence that Bashar al-Assad used sarin gas in the devastating chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 people last month, John Kerry, the US secretary of state announced, as he pressed the administration case for air strikes.

This is being presented as some kind of game-changer.  But it’s nothing of the sort.  It is merely a demonstration of the government’s ignorance and refusal to listen.  It was not because of a lack of evidence of a chemical attack that the public stood opposed to attacking Syria and MPs voted down the government in the Commons, but the fact that the proposed military action had no defined outcome and the effects and consequences of such an attack on the Syrian people (and indeed the UK military and general public) are unknown.

John Kerry’s emotive announcement is a call to Congress to vote for military action to punish al-Assad.  That is not a humanitarian objective.  It is not even a strategic military objective.  It is nothing more than a desire to beat up on Syria because the western powers have been offended by the regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

For Kerry to then go on and attempt, in the way he did, to link the appetite to attack Syria with protecting the national security of the US is ludicrously fatuous.  If anything, the proposed attack has the potential to aid Al Qaeda, which does genuinely represent a threat to America and the UK.  Even the famously disengaged American masses (when it comes to foreign policy and the wider world) seem to be grasping this fact and don’t want their armed forces sent on a needless military adventure.

And so the political class continue to play their games regardless of the wishes of the public, who are supposedly served by this belligerent and dangerous collection of busybodies.  This is what is commonly and airily described by the establishment as ‘democracy’.  Does it feel democratic to you?

Meanwhile, on planet Hague…


Concrete Willy has also been playing a part in the coordinated whingefest about that lost vote over Syria.

Continuing on the same theme as Hammond and Rifkind, by focusing exclusively on the process story and exhibiting an unseemly and desperate fetish for being side by side with the Americans and wanting to take military action, Hague failed to even mention the Syrian people or the humanitarian drivers that supposedly necessitate military action against one side in the civil war.  But the partisan party politicking agenda was serviced in full in comments reported by the Telegraph as the assault on Miliband and Labour was upped a notch.

It wasn’t the alleged international perception of the UK being weak and the Falklands now being in dire peril as a result of us not showing we can lob missiles at Syria from afar.  No, this time it was that the defeat of the motion and Labour’s role in it has caused ‘serious concerns’ in the US and various European capitals!  Servicing Tory party interests, Concrete Willy, without batting an eyelid, told Dermot Murhaghan in respect of that Commons vote that, ‘On such occasions everyone should be able to rise above any party interests’. He also said about Labour:

There’s some serious concerns in other capitals – not just across the Atlantic but in European capitals as well – about the position they have taken in voting down a Government motion which actually had in it pretty much everything that they asked for.

So all this concern in these ‘European capitals’ is not for the Syrian people, but what it all means for the political elite.  That figures.  There’s nothing like a bit of self interest to exercise the servants of the public is there?  Perhaps that explains why none bar the French are sending their armed forces to bomb Syria.  It is a coalition of the unwilling.

Hague’s comments reek of so much bullshit.  They have most likely been provoked because after all his efforts to whip up international support for intervention on the side of the rebels, he has lost as much face as Cameron after being told by Parliament to put his guns back in their holster.

Showing up this party political, self serving crap for what it is, is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.  Nothing said since the vote has offered any reasonable justification for intervening in Syria.  The hollow arguments we heard in Parliament were the sum total on offer.  Seeking to launch an undefined, purpose-free military attack on the basis of nothing more than emotion, and the subsequent self justifying bleating that has followed, is frankly disgraceful.

Another Parliamentary man-child exhibits petulant hysteria over Syria fallout

It seems there is no limit to the capacity for self indulgent hysteria among some Parliamentarians as they throw infantile hissy fits about that Syria vote.

Rather than pause and reflect on the shortcomings of their arguments, they revert to petulant jibes at those they believe betrayed them in their effort to project military power without a defined objective to a known or predicted effect.  Leading the tantrums is the pompous former Tory minister, Malcolm Rifkind, who is quoted in the Mail on Sunday.

So distraught is Rifkind about David Cameron’s defeat at the hands of Labour and 30 Tory backbench rebels, he has suggested the refusal to intervene in Syria will result in a perception of British weakness around the world, risking another invasion of the Falkland Islands.  Into the bargain he takes a swipe at Miliband in an effort to paint him as weak on military action, when he said:

This will not affect our determination to defend the Falklands. But that had better be made clear to the Argentinian government – especially by Mr Miliband.

Such a comment is preposterous.  There is no similarity between Syria and any potential Falklands conflict with Argentina.  It evidently does not follow that refusal to use British military power in Syria without a clear objective and required effect, means we would not use military power to known effect to achieve a clear objective in defending the Falklands.

Moronic comments such as Rifkind’s are the consequence and by-product of life inside the Westminster bubble.  As an isolated gene pool that breeds within itself weakens and degrades, so it is that tightly controlled and limited sources of information, along with self reinforcing bias confirmation, narrows minds and results in comparatively uninformed and disconnected political leaders.

All of which explains why moral outrage was the sole driver of the desire to attack Syria and there was no consideration or knowledge about whether such an intervention would have a humanitarian effect or harm those who were supposed to be protected by it.  There are times when intervention and military action to a defined outcome are necessary and appropriate.  This is simply not one of them.

More contradictory clap trap bemoaning Britain not attacking Syria

Some commentary that passes for prestigious, expert analysis is enough to make one exhale, roll the eyes and despair at the author’s sheer ignorance.

Stacked head and shoulders above the claque today is a steaming pile of dung produced Andrew Roberts titled, ‘Hideously amoral Little England has stepped through the looking glass’, which the Mail on Sunday publishes and promotes as ‘A top historian’s deeply personal – and inflammatory – critique of where Britain now stands on the world stage’.  Let’s have a flavour of it before we evidence Roberts’ sheer stupidity:

Britain has stepped through the looking glass into a weird and distorting new world, and one from which I fear she will never step back. By refusing to punish a foreign dictator for his despicable use of poison gas on unarmed civilians, we have deliberately relinquished our once-cherished role as one of the world’s foremost moral policemen, and joined the ranks of global spectators, merely tut-tutting from the sidelines rather than taking an active part in defending decency.

A huge cultural shift has taken place in our country and historians of the future will focus on Thursday night, in the House of Commons, as the time that the new Britain emerged in all its hideous, amoral selfishness.

There is more nonsense where that came from.  What is weird and distorting is Roberts’ failure to reference anywhere in his rant what the proposed military attack on Syria is supposed to achieve and evidence of consideration of the effects of the attack on the people we would be supposedly looking to protect.  Surely such a heavyweight historian would have learned and would now understand that when looking to use military force there has to be a clear objective.  Doling out punishment is not a clear objective where success can be measured and it is certainly not a responsible use of force.

But it is when one looks back at Roberts’ previously published opinions that we see just how much of a shallow fool Roberts really is.  Consider this extract from his 2007 essay ‘At stake in the Iraq war: survival of a way of life’:

In Iraq and Afghanistan, meanwhile, English-speaking forces ignore such pusillanimity and get on with the vital job of fighting those who would turn the Middle East into a maelstrom of jihadist anarchy and terror.

We know that Al Qaeda cannot be appeased, because if they could, the French would have appeased them by now. Al Qaeda is utterly remorseless, even setting bombs (detected by authorities in time) on the Madrid-to-Seville railway line in April 2004, after Spain decided to withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Fortunately, however, the English have been here before. Thrice. Their history provides a number of apposite lessons about how to defeat this latest fascist threat.

Since 1900, the English-speaking peoples have been subjected to four great assaults: first from Prussian militarism, then by Axis aggression, then from Soviet communism. The present assault from totalitarian Islamic terrorism is simply our generation’s equivalent of our forefathers’ successful struggles against the three earlier fascist threats. But in this fourth and latest contest, victory is not yet in sight.

In researching my book, “A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900” – a coda to Winston Churchill’s classic – I visited the papers of 200 individuals in 30 archives on three continents. While there, I could not help concluding that this struggle against Islamofascism is the fourth world war. And I was repeatedly struck by how often common themes from the four struggles emerged.

So here we have a man who views us as being in a righteous ‘fourth world war’ struggle against Islamofascism, a battle being waged against an enemy that cannot be appeased – namely Al Qaeda.  Yet he has been hammering on his keyboard in foam flecked fury for the Mail on Sunday, because the handbrake was put on a military attack, the aim of which would be to punish a brutal dictator who is fighting against… Al Qaeda.  You could not make this up.

Roberts not only has no concept of the effects of military action per se, he is incapable of recognising that the Al Qaeda Islamic fascist threat he says we have to fight could only be aided by the British attacking the very forces that are actually fighting them.  And yet this buffoon is given copious column inches in the Mail on Sunday as a supposed expert.

This is yet another example of the shallow, superficial and uninformed substitute for reason and critical thinking that underpins the government’s emotionally driven rush to violence.  They are long on indignation, short on wisdom.  And as Roberts shows, their partisan and politically motivated cheerleaders are no better.


Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive