Tuesday, April 13, 2010

David Cameron: We can’t just snap our fingers and fix Britain

What takes 18 months of non-stop media broadsides and bombardment in the United States, usually takes about 18 days in the United Kingdom. Although being a political junkie himself, even the constant campaign mentality and disingenuous partisan overdose forced into our veins wears thin on the werewolf at the end of each presidential election cycle. In a perfect world (no such thing), the werewolf would like to think that the long-in-the-tooth American approach, and the short-and-stumpy British approach to elections could meet somewhere in the middle. A cycle where debates are thorough and genuine, convincing and persuasion of the electorate meaningful, and the urgency of the pending deadline is felt driving appropriately calculating decision. Wishful thinking indeed.

Anyhow, David Cameron, the conservative leader, is set to be the likely replacement for the frumpy, stodgy, and uninspired socialist blob that is Gordon Brown, has penned a decent  "why elect me" piece in the Times of London. While the werewolf prefers David Cameron, he finds Cameron's wishy-washyness on issues like global warming, his bizarre social posturing, and lust for media attention at rate that should even make a politician blush, all legitimate points of concern. However, the U.K. is ripe for a course correction.  All politicians are full of shit to some degree. After this country foolishly swooned over a rotten crock of "hope and change," Cameron's article for all of it's pro forma political bull, has a few decent and worthy sections to it that even impressed the werewolf, oh so slightly.

"So the manifesto we are publishing today is a comprehensive and cohesive plan to change Britain for the better. It will change Westminster and Whitehall for ever. It is a blueprint for reform that is rich in policy but rooted in a core idea of replacing state control with social responsibility.
But it is not a traditional manifesto. We are not saying that we will solve all your problems and, with a snap of the fingers, create a better Britain out of thin air. Because I don’t believe it is in the power of politicians to do this. And in truth, all those phoney pledges and simplistic promises have contributed to voters’ cynicism when it comes to politics."
The people of the United Kingdom have a stark choice ahead. Let's hope they don't screw the pooch as badly as we did in the fall of 2008.


  1. Cameron is more of the same old BS establishment. One side of a two-faced coin (or is it three-faced now?). When I talk to British refugees in California they tell me the number one issue for them is immigration. But, of course, that is a topic shunned by the ruling elites (as it is in the US). Something radical needs to occur in Britain, probably involving applied violence. On the plus side, more Labour/Con establishment rule in Britain means more British refugees in California, Australia, Canada, and elsewhere, so I'm looking forward to making new friends.

  2. I still long for the bold reforming Thatcherite days of yore. I agree the Tories are a shadow of their former selves. But whence salvation? Labour is appalling and tired, while the LibDems seem fresh, they are naive and fiscally dangerous.

    The British and European immigrant problem is particularly disturbing and corrosive, because they accept belligerent peoples who refuse to assimilate into their culture. In the long, I think out Anglo cousins across the pond are doomed.

  3. However, I am not sure what to make of "applied violence." The state naturally has a monopoly on violence, so I guess all state actions are extensions of "applied violence." Unless a hostile army, active insurrection/rebellion, terrorist operation, or some sort of major criminal enterprise is occurring, I am universally against the state exercising applied violence on populations.(Routine law enforcement measures against individuals are okay if the crime happens to be violent in nature.) As I said, I think Europe has had a deeply flawed immigration policy that will undermine their long term stability. I also find fault with the US approach to immigration on some levels. Although there are stark contrasts between the two cases presented. I think Europe is a more precarious state from an internal security perspective. A thoughtful and measured immigration policy that promotes the inflow of intellectual capital and talent serves to benefit a country and its long-term growth prospects and help it retain a competitive advantage against other countries. Also, any country that is a destination and beacon of hope for the blighted peoples of the world, such as the USA, should have provisions to provide access in a thoughtful and security-centered fashion, while promoting assimilation into the host countries culture. I struggle what to do with non-assimilating immigrant populations as a long-term public policy measure. However, I do believe that a liberal -in the democratic constitutional values sense- state has forfeited the right to applied violence against any population (unless there is a state war).

    Europe's problems are its own. I think a flight of European intellectual capital and talent will be a net gain for the USA, not only socially, but also from a business and economic talent perspective. As Europe crumbles, we need to take copious notes and avoid their many pitfalls and do what we can to attract their top talent.