Lincolnshire Tory MP Quentin Davies has made a scathing attack on Cameron’s lack of leadership, saying it's time he acted consistently and in the national interest rather than on a PR agenda to chase tomorrow's headlines.Explaining why he voted against a Tory motion calling for another inquiry into the Iraq war while our troops are still in theatre, Quentin Davies, MP for Stamford and Grantham writes on Conservative Home:
If we want to be taken seriously as an alternative government we should not do things in Opposition, or urge on the Government a line of action which no responsible government would dream of.Well said, Quentin.
It would be utterly mistaken to hold such an inquiry now. If you want to win a war or a military campaign you have to keep your forces' attention focussed one hundred per cent on the tasks they have in hand.
So what the (Conservative) Party did yesterday sadly just wasn't a sufficiently serious response to a very serious situation.
Of course I understand the temptations of Opposition - you crave for headlines; it's difficult to pass up the chance of creating a split in the Labour Party. But these temptations should be resisted.
We should act, and be seen to be acting, calmly, reflectively and consistently, not on a PR agenda, but on a clear articulated analysis of the national interest.
10 comments:
Labour are misleading people on this. Their argument over the Iraq inquiry is dishonest. Such lies being told, when troops are already dying for the first of Blair's lies, is sickening.
Their argument goes..."we can't have an inquiry into the Iraq War because we are still at war". The implication..."when the war is over, we will have an inquiry". Yet the question you have to ask yourself is..."why will Labour not give a committment to an inquiry when the war is finished"?
The only conclusion to be drawn by a sensible person..."they have no intention of holding an inquiry at any time". They are using our troops current engagement as a cover for their stupidity. Shame on them.
What the odious turd Davies says means as much as ever...nowt.
I'm not clear what the honey-tongued Michael Oakeshott has against Quentin Davies when they seem to share so many of the same prejudices.
On this question, Quentin is completely at sea, I'm afraid.
He talks about "winning a war or a military campaign".
But the Iraq war was lost long ago.
Our troops are now holed up in Basra airport waiting for the word to go.
Everybody back home in Britain knows that the Iraq war has increased the terror threat to us, further destabilised the Middle East and caused untold misery to the Iraqi people.
We don't just need an inquiry, which might shed some light on what has already happened, we also need a foreign policy which promotes social progress and collective security as opposed to the present promotion of arms sales to oil tyrants.
Phil - why don't you run a story about the splits in the Labour Party over taxation and the railways?
No I am quite happy with arms sales to oil tyrants(providing they are our men). The more the better, assuming they are paying the market rate.
The inquiry should be held into the botched invasion. The invasion itself isn't a problem - controlling Iraq's oil makes our nation greater and is a call for rejoicing. I just don't like being made to look incompetent in the eyes of the world. That's the crime.
Michael you know perfectly well that our arms sales to oil tyrants carry a 30% mark up.
I'm pleased to see you have the honesty to revert to your earlier views on Iraq. You want it for the empire.
That at least is clear, if a tad unrealistic.
I just want to control the output of their oil and establish army bases there. Imagine if Iran force us into war(as now looks likely). Our jet will fly from Baghdad and destroy their cities at will. Only then will people realise the wisdom of subjugating Iraq. I have no interest in including it in an empire: I care not what the Iraqi people do with their Government and cash, providing it serves our interests. Perfectly realistic, for we have achieved it. A few people taking potshots at our troops won't change the geo-political situation: the US and the UK are greater for the invasion. It is impolitic to say it. But even the dogs on the street know it.
There has been no reversion. I have always believed this. The only qualm I have with Blair is that he took a very good idea and made an absolute bollocks of it.
...and the people of the region?
What would it take to make them appreciate the wisdom of being subjugated?
Nice old-fashioned word subjugated.
Rendolent of high imperialism.
Anyway glad to hear that we are now greater for the invasion.
You are the first person to know this.
And, so far, the only one.
Oh contraire Brynley. The UK is full of them. They are making tons of money out of it.
They just aren't on the Beeb.
Mercenaries?
Pity.
Post a Comment