Cameron & Obama

Now it is fair to say that this blog is not the most Obama friendly. As with most Conservatives I have an enormous amount of issues with Barack Obama’s plans for America. First and foremost I believe that his politics, at least on the surface, appears dangerously left wing and as history has continually shown the left wing never has and never will hold the answers to the problems of the world. It is no secret that socialism has led to leaders like, Mao, Franco, Hitler and Stalin who butchered and maimed tens of millions of their own people in the name of ‘socialism’ and ‘equality’. Socialism and left wing politics are a cancer that spread at times of weakness, desperation and vulnerability. They play on peoples fears and exploit their hopes.

 At the minute America is increasingly vulnerable as they feel that the right wing politics that has characterised their governance over the last decade has failed them miserably so they are lurching to the left in desperate, false hope of the grass being greener on the other side. Obama talks the talk. Hes clever. He’s fresh but most crucially he appears genuine and uncorrupted. However Obama plans do not represent fresh hope but fresh danger for America. He plans large increases in government spending on health and education which in principle are perfectly okay, however he wants to increase taxation on the rich, who already pay more than their fair share, to pay for it. In addition he is dangerously at odds with the prevailing political and economic consensus in the world as he is against companies using the opportunities of free markets to restructure their operations within the US.

Economically he is vehemently protectionist and on the foreign policy level he continues to insist, despite the growing evidence that this left-wing nostrum would be lunacy, that the US must pull its troops out of Iraq. To add insult to injury he threatens to undermine the British, French and German negotiations with Tehran, that have been operating for the last 5 years, and engage in direct, unconditional talks with the dictator. As members of Obama’s own team have stated, Obama is aware that many European leaders believe his plans could undermine the current diplomatic efforts to persuade Tehran to surrender its nuclear programme making the siutation much worse in the longer term.

Now what is the purpose of this post you might ask other than the usual Obama bashing? Well left wing friends of mine have jumped at the oppourunity today to claim that David Cameron and Barack Obama are now ‘best buds’ and the purpose of this post is to dispell such myths. It is true that today David Cameron has praised Obama for his comments suggesting that ‘black absentee fathers need to step up to the plate’ however this has been grossly exaggerated to suit the prevailing media agenda of ‘Obama mania’. The media are selective in their reporting. It is true most Britons are quite taken with Obama and thus the papers have adopted a much more favourable tone when discussing the Democratic candidate and over embellished Camerons ‘endorsement’ of Obama.

Cameron made a very brief reference to Obama as he spoke of his wider plans for social reform. However I still believe that Cameron, as with many Conservatives, will be backing John McCain for US President as ideologically the two have much more common ground and Cameron has consistently heaped praise on the Republican candidate who has responded by dubbing Cameron the ‘Tory JFK’. Incidently I also agree with Obama’s remarks that black absentee fathers need to wake up to their responsibilities as do some white fathers, however this does not mean I endorse Obama and it doesn’t mean Cameron does either. Cameron is being courteous with Obama as it looks ever more likely that America will have a President Obama in 2009 and Britain will have a Prime Minister Cameron not long after.  Thus the two men need to maintain a cordial personal relationship but cordial relations does not mean friendship or ideological compatibility.

On another issue I am becoming ever more impressed with Camerons leadership after he has called for the obese, the idle and the poor to take more responsibility for themselves, saying society is too sensitive and fails to “say what needs to be said”. Cameron is exerting true Conservative conviction and is in his own words ‘saying what needs to be said’.


11 thoughts on “Cameron & Obama

  1. Well as a Labour supporter I’m delighted that Cameron has made that comment about the poor, because it shows how out of touch he is. My Parents struggle to make ends meet, mainly because they did all they could to get me and my brother through University so we could get a good start in the real world, which we have. Thanks to that though my Mum and Dad are struggling in many ways.

    According to Cameron though, their suffering is all their own fault, despite the fact they were just trying to do their best for their family.

    If this is Conservative conviction, insulting people who don’t get everything handed to him on a plate like him and his Eton cronies, I’m moving to an Obama led America.

  2. I think you have misunderstood what he is getting at. Your parents clearly helped you because they had pushed themselves to be in a position to help you. Some arent like that. There is growing evidence to suggest that there are those who are poor due to their own bone idleness and desire to have an ‘easy life’. In many cases its not they cant work but they wont work.

    Labour have created a cluture of dependency and it is being exploited. Cameron is suggesting that those who are poor and wont help themselves will not be subsidised by the state and will have to face up to their actions under the Conservatives, not that all people on lower incomes are all ‘bone idle’ although I can see how it could be interpreted that way.

  3. Actually your beloved Mrs T. was the one who allowed dependency to spread. The Social security burden rocketed under her leadership..

  4. You can tell this blog was written after a nerve of yours had been hit Dan.
    I think making parallels between Obama, his policies, and Hitler and Stalin is a bit.. much maybe.

    This is coming from a girl who’s still not sure where she stands in McCain vs. Obama race.

  5. Joe,

    Your comment is an historically crass generalisation. Firstly, a culture of dependency will of course exist wherever there is a welfare state or any form of social security regardless of how primitive. Indeed over-dependency is a theme that’s runs through modern British history, probably since the introduction of the poor laws in the 16th century. However, it is not a valid reason for repealing all these social saftey nets.

    If you were more subtle you might suggest a tightening of social provision in order to make it more economically viable for those currently claiming benefits to work. This, however, would be a criticism of specific rules and not the welfare state in general.

  6. Of course it is a generalistion, that was the point of it, and I believe it to be, at least to a large extent, correct. Rather than blaming Thatcher for every problem our union has suffered in the past 30 years why not look at the greater concepts that influenced her and indeed everyone – the Welfare State was a ‘nice’ idea, help people get back on their feet and all that, however, what Atlee and his government didn’t count on was that their great achievement would be exploited to the extent it has, especially in recent times. This wasn’t their fault, but neither was it Thatchers.

    Of course the social security burden rocketed under Thatcher – like it or not, some people can’t compete. Personally I would introduce the Wisconsin Social Benefits model – that you are only allowed to be on benefits if you are able bodied and can work, for five years of your working life. I’m sure this will be considered quite fascist by many of the left, but I believe that this is what our country needs, a good lesson of ‘pull your finger out of we’ll pull your benefits’.

  7. I have some sympathy with limiting benefit payments, although this rather undermines the principle of national insurance. Ypu seem to forget that people are broadly supportive of national insurance and pay it. They then expect the insurance to pay out when they hit difficulties.

    However large this culture of dependency you talk about, it is not the fault of the welfare state at all, perhaps only of its mis-management.

    Moreover, I’m not entirely sure why you made a generalisation in the knowledge that you were making one. This must mean that on an intellectual level you know you’re discussing the issue in very simplistic terms.

  8. We couldn’t have this culture of dependency without the Welfare State, in my view, and so it is of course largely to blame. I made a generalisation as, in the great scheme of things, I am only commenting on an article on a blog, and so my views are largely insignificant (said through gritted teeth!), and so, perhaps (it can be argued) to sensationalise, perhaps (in my opinion) just to sum up my views, I used a generalisation so as to express my views in a short and sweet manner.

    My views would probably be much more suited to the American culture where there is a greater emphasis on self-reliance, because I do believe we have a huge culture of dependency, which many sociologists have described as an ‘underclass’, although i’m not sure I would use this term. Charles Murray argued this underclass to be males as the head of the family discarding the role of breadwinner as they are happy to live off benefits and social security money, although again this might be a bit extreme for me, I certainly do feel some of his idea’s are true.

    I am not a Daily Mail reader, although sometimes the way in which I communicate my views might give the impression I am, I do however, believe we have a number of cultures running through this nation that are abhorrent and so need to be changed, and rather regrettably through government intervention as there seems no other alternative. If we, as a nation, continue our present tide of reliance, then I fear we may end up in dire straits and with no way of getting out of it, and even worse, far too content and lazy to do anything about it.

  9. Perhaps, or perhaps an increase in education, perhaps the Wisconsin model, perhaps reinforcing the meritocracy through numerous incentives for those that do work, or perhaps even just finding people that don’t work a job, after all, we’re always complaining about public services.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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