Sunday, 14 September 2008

Re: Republicans

Ok, this has taken a while mainly due to my laziness and busy schedule, but here is my response to Nick’s response to my response to Nick's initial blog post about the US elections.

"good government needs to be spending low amounts wisely"

I agree with Nicks assertion that a government should spend wisely, but in America the majority of spending is done by individual states. Therefore a restriction on national spending would allow the government to spend wisely on defence, foreign policy and national coordination while leaving the states free to do education, healthcare and other areas, which are more sensibly handled at a local level. I also believe this system of allowing local councils to dictate their spending would work in the UK and allow for better and lower spending

"I hear him talking about boosting healthcare provision"

You are also probably aware of my position that the NHS in its current form is due to an aging population unsustainable and that we need to make decisions in the next parliament what to do about it. The fact that a presidential candidate is considering introducing a similar system shows me how out of touch he is.

"Not only do the British Conservative Party not equate to the Republicans, they are in reality closer to the Democrats"

You also say Tories are closer to Democrats, I disagree with this. The Democrats are anti-free trade, the Conservative party committed to the free market, how we can be similar when we disagree with on our fundamental tenets I do not understand. I believe considering the globalization we are experiencing a protectionist party is dangerous and

I agree with Nick about the Iraq War, we were lied to this issue is why I became an active Conservative to destroy the party which played politics with our troops (demonstrated again when Brown visited our boys during the party conference last year).

"more military resources on hand to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina"

I think you are indulging in fantasy about Osama being captured, I also think military resources and Katrina is missing the point. The resources were there, just mismanaged on the ground. Think about those school buses allowed to flood or battalions not allowed to deploy because the Mayor could not be found to give permission to enter the city. New Orleans has not been rebuilt as the people have not returned, but have settled elsewhere to feel safer.

"Barack has made clear energy independence is a priority"

You talk about energy security, I agree both candidates talk a good game, but McCain supports the drilling necessary to being an end to foreign oil imports. As an engineer I do not think the government should be supporting research into renewable energy, as the market is doing this (anyone who solves the energy crisis will make a lot of money, so investors are getting in early)

"You refer to Obama as inexperienced. Well, you have a point, but Barack served in the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004 and has been a US Senator since 2005. David Cameron only entered Parliament in 2001, and only assumed a Shadow Cabinet role in 2005, but he is now the likely next Prime Minister, and I know you support him."

By the time Cameron is elected he will have been leader for 4 years and in parliament for 9, I think he will be experience enough. Obama is a junior senator and has never had an executive or cabinet role.

Also Palin has had real executive experience, Governor of a crucial state in the energy war, mayor of a town and being responsible for all its services, she wins is a real ace in the McCain hand.

"You claim Obama has zero policies"

I have been on Obama’s website and also read his “blueprint for change” and found it to be mainly aspirations and not ideas. An empty rhetoric of supporting this policy and small ideas, with minimal information of the big issues, compared to the manifestos of any British party from 2005 it is wishy washy and lax.

"I've noted before that I think both McCain and Palin to be genuine, decent and hard working people, my problem is with a Republican Party that opposes gun control, supports the death penalty, opposes the use stem cells for potential life saving treatment and who oppose same-sex marriage (interesting that some self-proclaimed Libertarians seem to overlook this fact). McCain may well have ethics, so does Palin, but they are not the right ethics for America in 2008."

This is an interesting point about the right ethics, I remember hearing once that “ethics are affected by the surroundings”, you say that “these are not the right ethics for America”, but I say they are marriage is by definition between man and woman, those who ignore societies laws should suffer consequences, guns do not kill people people kill people (more are killed by doctors and cars than by guns, should we get rid of these). I am a libertarian, I believe the state should not interfere, as part of this the state should not interfere with a millennia old institution as a way to win some trendy votes.

My final argument for McCain is this America is at war and needs a war president. McCain has fought, Obama does not understand the military or foreign policy, he would be a danger.

1 comment:

Nick said...

I'll get to it in a bit :-)