INVESTING FOR REBALANCED SQUEEZED FAMILIES !

Hearing Ed Miliband on the radio this morning makes me wonder if I'm the only person in the country who is tired of the meaningless rhetoric spouted by our politicians.

Not that Miliband used all of these today, but phrases such as 'rebalancing the economy', 'the squeezed middle', 'hard-working families', 'investing for jobs', 'the Big Society', and so on are so nebulous as to be worthless. This might be, to use a word last voiced by Jacob Rees Mogg in the House of Commons, floccinaucinihilipilification, but anyone who ever listens to a political speech will hear these and an array of other equally meaningless expressions of apparent strength and support for the population at large.

For decades, successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have, in presenting their spring Budgets, claimed to have taken thousands, or even millions, 'out of tax'; indeed, so many have supposedly been 'taken out of tax' that surely there can be no tax payers left - perhaps I'm the only one ! The very use of such a nonsensical phrase should be anathma to any intelligent person - everyone pays an assortment of taxes, not just the high profile income tax to which Chancellors refer on such occasions, but we also have national insurance, VAT, stamp duties of various sorts, petrol duty, car tax, road fund licence, air passenger duty, alcohol duties, tobacco duty, capital gains tax, inheritance tax, council tax, corporation tax, gaming duties, the television licence and probably others that I've forgotten. It is unlikely that any adult avaoids all of these and, if memory serves, we currently pay, on average, around 50% of our incomes on taxes of one sort or another.

When Prime Ministers, and others, claim that certain measures are necessary for reasons of 'national security', what do they actually mean ? When they say that pursuing a particular course of action 'would not be in the national interest', how do they arrive at such a conclusion ? It is a sad truth that many people have become so disillusioned by the failure of our political leaders to say anything meaningful and of substance that they no longer trust any of them; one only has to listen to Prime Ministers Questions to realise the extent to which ruling politicians will go in order to avoid saying anything of note. All they are interested in is besting their opponents and voicing memorable 'sound bites' which they hope will serve them well in future elections.

With local elections upon much of the country next week, though thankfully not in my area, what choice is there for the population ? In London, will it be more of Boris or a return to Ken ? Either choice will be a continuation of the same, leadership by a member of a political elite that has crowded out 'real people'. Across the rest of the country, the choice is virtually the same - Conservative or Labour, with the Liberals a weakening force and others bringing up the rear. None of those elected for any of the major parties will be true representatives of the people, but will be servants of their parties, almost all bound to follow a party manifesto rather than the true wishes of the people they claim to represent. Many will also be no more than time-servers, members of councils for decades who want nothing more than to have a quiet life.

If I had a vote next week, who would I vote for ? One thing for certain is that I would vote - not voting, out of a sense of resignation, to the inevitable would be wrong. Something else that is certain is that I would not vote for any of the major parties, Labour (whether 'New', 'Old' or 'Middle-aged'), Conservative or Liberal. If no other parties appeared on the ballot paper, I would deliberately spoil it; otherwise, I would vote for anyone else, UKIP if standing but Green, Communist, BNP, Independent or any other flavour, simply to voice an opposition to the status quo. What will you do ?

REBALANCE AND BE POORER

Whenever I hear a politician talk of 'rebalancing the economy' or, indeed, 'rebalancing' anything else, I despair. Even David Cameron, a supposed Conservative, uses the phrase with enthusiasm.

This type of rhetoric is much favoured by politicians and their ilk but is meaningless in the real world. Indeed, it is, in fact, meaningless. Do they define what they mean by either 'the economy' or 'rebalancing' ? No. Does anyone really know what is meant by 'rebalancing' ? No.

Our economy is shot to pieces. For decades we have paid ourselves too much for doing too little; we are no longer competitive and no one wants our manufactured exports because they are too expensive, so we stopped manufacturing. Instead, we now rely on so-called 'invisibles', products of the money markets, for the bulk of our export income. 'Rebalancing' apparently means that we should now try to move away from this reliance on 'invisibles' and regain some of our former dominance in real goods.

This is all very well in principal but, in reality, it's simply meaningless rhetoric (there I go again). Our workers are paid far more and enjoy a far better lifestyle than your average Chinese, Brazilian, Indian, Russian etc.; ergo, our exports are more expensive than what they produce, and the only way we can compete is to reduce our costs. So 'rebalancing' really means reducing wages and making the workers poorer to equalise our 'wealth' with that of workers elsewhere, a fine Socialist ambition.

Now, which politician will say that ? And why is David Cameron so in favour of it ?

TERRORISTS HAVE NO RELIGION.

The nonsense surrounding a variety of supposed Islamic terrorists never ceases to amaze me. If the subjects of the stories were Christian or Jewish, there'd be no comment and no coverage, but because they're Islamic, the wires are blocked up with no end of drivel.

I don't care what religion these people claim to follow, what matters is that they're terrorists. If there's sufficient evidence to support charges against them, then charge them; whether it's in the UK, USA or anywhere else doesn't really matter.

If found guilty, I'd happily shoot them, whatever sect they belonged to. If found not guilty, then release them and shoot them when they're caught again. Whatever, why does such inconsequential rubbish take up so much space in the national news media ?

MIDDLE EASTERN CHAOS

A few months ago it was Libya and before that it was Egypt. Along the way, there were a few other less significant states and we still have Bahrain in a degree of turmoil.

Most significantly, the current concern seems to be Syria, where the uncivilized barbarians are wreaking havoc. The sad thing is that whoever wins, the barbarians will remain in charge because they are all barbarians.

Of course, saying such things is not only 'un-PC' but probably racist and illegal in this lunatic world of ours. Nonetheless, the truth is that countries such as Syria are barely beyond where we were 7 or 8 hundred years ago; they are, in all real senses, uncivilized barbarians. Oh yes, their rulers may have gone to Oxford, Cambridge or Sandhurst and they may be doctors or lawyers, but to bastardise an old saying, 'You can take the boy out of the desert but you can't take the desert out of the boy'. People such as Assad and his supporters are primitive in outlook and barbaric in behaviour; they are not dissimilar to the rulers of medieval Europe who routinely did the most horrendous things to their enemies. The only difference is that, today, the Western world has moved on and now considers such things to be unacceptable. Assad and his ilk are still there,in the middle ages.

Some in America are demanding that it's time for their country to take an active military role; what gives them that right in the absence of a UN mandate escapes me, but then of course, the USA basically does whatever it likes because no one else can challenge it - at the moment. The USA is at least as dangerous, if not actually much more so, than any of the countries it has the temerity to threatren, challenge or invade. Syria is simply the latest in a long list of supposed threats that some in the US feel needs to be neutralized. How Syria can actually be any sort of threat to the USA is a mystery to anyone who doesn't understand the incestuous relationship between that country and it's middle eastern master, Israel.

What is without doubt very clear is that Syria is just another medieval state and no amount of western intervention will make any difference. As with Afghanistan, we can huff and puff but the only result will be to replace one corrupt and brutal regime with another. The USA will, if it serves it's own internal interests, send in the boys to sort out the natives, but at what cost and to what real end ? I despair of the modern world and frequently wonder if I am alone.

BOAT RACE IDIOCY

The interruption of yesterday's University boat race by a moronic demonstrator with a silly name showed just how stupid this country has become. 

The man had no business being where he was and it was his own choice to be there. Back in 1913, Emily Davidson attempted to disrupt the Derby by running out in front of the King's horse, and lost her life for her stupidity. Yesterday, though, the oarsmen stopped in their tracks for fear of hurting the poor idiot in the water. Officials later claimed that there was no choice as it was a 'health and safety issue'.

What drivel ! What moronic rubbish !

The cretin in the water knew full well what he was doing; the boats should have continued on their way and if he had suffered injury, so be it. Instead, a great race was effectively ruined and the moron will probably be bound over to keep the peace in future.

No wonder our society is crumbling around us.