In an article in today’s Daily Telegraph (04/09/2013) Graeme Archer points out that despite Ed Miliband campaigning for a NO vote against limited military action against Syria, in concert with the USA and France, now that Parliament have voted against it It turns out that Labour didn't expect the Government to lose. Now they want the chance to vote again.
Ben Bradshaw, MP for Exeter, a former Labour Cabinet minister, suggested [Mr Archer’s emphasis] that ED (the conquering hero who won the NO vote) would now support a second Parliamentary vote being called. Wouldn’t this motion then have to be substantively identical to the one voted down 96 hours ago? If so you have to wonder if the Labour Party (Mr Miliband aside) wanted the original motion to succeed why didn’t they vote for it in the first place? I believe that this just goes to show that Miliband was not doing what he did for the good of democracy, or the good of the country, but only what he perceived, in the very short term, to be good for him.
Meanwhile Jim Murphy (MP for East Renfrewshire), Labour's defence spokesperson, said that "really significant developments in Syria" would imply that “of course the Prime Minister has the right to bring that back to Parliament." We know that thousands have already been killed in Syria's civil war; perhaps we should as Ed how many more would make it "significant"?
Now, if we were to apply logic to this position; (Okay, I’m aware that logic and the Labour Party are not comfortable bedfellows, but stay with me for a minute) then given the Government's motion you have to ask your self three questions:
1) Do you think Syria is a matter with which Britain should be involved?
2) Do you think Syria is a matter with which Britain should not be involved?
3) Are you not sure?
If your answer to the first question is YES then surely you should have voted FOR Mr Cameron’s motion. If you go with question two then surely you should have voted NO. If you were not sure then shouldn’t you have ABSTAINED? What I am now unclear about is is how you can vote against involvement on a Thursday and then, over the weekend, or maybe even as you were walking through the NO lobby, decide that it's all the Prime Minister's fault that you don't get to vote again next week, because this time you would support him.
Perhaps Ed Miliband is starting to worry that his behaviour last week confirms the negative perception we have of his personality. That he behaved like a total amoral lowlife toward his brother in his naked desire to to sell himself to the unions and become leader, maybe a bigger drag on what the public thinks of him than is generally appreciated by the pseudo-intellectual, metropolitan Neo-Marxists, toadies and “Yes Men” he has surrounded himself with. It looks like they have retreated to the position of: “When the facts change, I change … my opinion, moral stance, political ground, etc., etc. (strike out what does not apply). It may be more accurate to say: "When it looks like I might be on the wrong side of Received Opinion, I'll do whatever it takes to turn that focus group around.
Perhaps however something else going on in the mind of Miliband Minor and the members of the labour Party? Some, far more cynical that I, may think the original stance and this new one show up the blatant hypocrisy of these cheap hucksters who will, like a cheap whore, adopt any position for preferment, or maybe they have taken a leaf out of George Orwell’s 1984 had have adopted Big Brother’s concept of Newthink and Doublethink?
Newthink is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words.Within Newthink is “Doublethink”; this is that the act whereby an individual or a group of people, for example in this case the Labour Party, can simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct. This is Somewhat related to, but almost the opposite of what we consider to acceptable behaviour in a civilised society i.e cognitive dissonance. This is where contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Newthink and Doublethink are notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance — thus the person, or group engaging in them are completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction. The question we must ask is “Do we want people capable of Newthink and Doublethink running the country?”
Ed appears to have lead his party to a place where they now believe that there is nothing that he,or the party could say to us now that we would not believe and even should they all “about face” we would continue to believe them. What that leads to is more of the “Wisdom of Big Brother; ““War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”; “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”. I however would prefer to live in in the twenty first century than 1984 and will be voting that way in 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment