Debt, not 'cuts', will destroy society

What a wonderful life it is for the BBC. Every morning they just have to trawl though the words from press releases and speeches in electronic format and look for the word "cuts" and they have a story ready for the morning news.

Since someone else will have said it, they can use the fig leaf that they are just reporting. Its impartial after all right ?

Everyone who's budget is being cut, or in many case not increased, is squealing. Local councils etc are offering up the "Red Arrows*" defence of bus and other high profile cuts whilst protecting their diversity and community cohesion managers for climate change.

But almost never do we have any reporting of the impact of the debt. Reporting on Ireland and Greece has gone quiet in BBC land.

Soon we will pay more in debt interest than on education. ( But of course you'll never see Socialist Worker banners handed out saying this to gullible students being reported on by the likes of Paul Mason. )

Its debt that will destroy our country as well sell tomorrow to bribe our today.

Where's the BBC investigation of what it could be like if our currency collapsed ? Where the consideration of what debt will do to future generations ? The inter-generational theft Nick Clegg has mentioned ?

Not from the BBC you can be sure. The BBC just has its left wing agenda to bring about another Labour government and destroy our country yet further with the sclerosis of debt.

* The Red Arrows defence is the ploy by which a government department or body always offers up the cut that will create the most publicity. Hence a cut in the RAF will mean the Red Arrows are under threat as they are much loved by the public ( oddly didn't happen this time, but it has on many other occasions ).

Update: It turns out the story that inspired this post on the BBC ( about evil kitten murdering cuts from bastard Tories of course ) has dropped down their running order. I wonder if its because its being pointed out that the source is a long time Labour supporter ?

The Afghan stabalisation war has stopped being in Britain's interests, if it ever was

It was right and proper that after the Taliban harboured Al Qaeda that the US and their friends and allies should inflict fast retribution and justice. Job done.

But what has followed has been much more ill defined and has rapidly been getting out of hand. The main argument seems to be to stay there to support our alliance with the US.

But as recent events in the Falklands and the Gulf of Mexico have shown the US has no intention of reciprocating.

General Sir David Richards says the Army must not be cut and money must be spent on the ongoing Afghan war - but I have another idea - cut the war, then you can cut the army. ( And also put those old RAF transport planes out of everyone's misery. )

Its time to face up to reality of being a island race, who can't really rely on the US and rebuild our blue water navy with air cover to go on top and pursue our national interests ( like defending the Falklands, their sheep & penguins and their large oil reserves ).

Its time to leave President Obama and his anti-British bigotry to it and bring our forces home. It will also save us a large amount of money and stop our young men and women being crippled for life in the numbers they are at present and allow us to pursue our national interests.

There I've said it. I've been hoping for a better rational for what's being going on in Afghanistan, but none has been forthcoming and I'm concluding that no one really knows what they're doing, except they can't admit to needing to come out after all the lost treasure and life.

Blame Labour

So its time to pay for all the borrowing and the failure to run a balanced economy.

Labour and the BBC will go on and on about cuts, but its Labour's fault for letting the gangrene on debt get such a grip on our country. The surgery that's now necessary is all their fault.

What would you cut ?

The coalition ( have we agreed to call it that ?) is starting the process of undoing Labour's attempt to destroy our country and economy today with areas where the state has to be cut back.

What would your suggestions be ?

My starter would be OffToff ( aka Office for Fair Access )- the Labour governments anti middle class children agency.

The sheer bloody nerve of Ed Balls

I've just read an article reporting that Ed Balls is trying to warn of cuts in education and that headteachers need to trim their budgets, especially primary school heads.

If you're not involved in schools this might sound fine to you, but I can tell you the government has until very recently been giving schools a hard time about not spending enough money !

And why won't the schools spend this money ? As they don't want to employ staff they then have to sack - that why Mr Balls !

Schools, like many other small to medium enterprises, are closely knit societies - and redundancies hurt moral hard.

The rest of us have seen the writing on the wall that Labour have been lying about and ignoring till very recently and have tried to act accordingly.

So its a bloody cheek for Ed Balls to start mouthing off at primary school heads and the need to save money to avoid redundancies.

Maybe he thinks sounding all tough on spending will get him made Chancellor if Brown wins and Alistair gets the "Forces of Hell" let lose on him again.

Almost too tired to attack Gordon Brown today...

.. no don't worry I'm not tired of life. But those terribly nice people over at Conservative home have done such a good job that I don't have to ....

Of course maybe Brown doesn't have to cut spending ...

Everyone seems to assume that the only way to resolve the public sector finance disaster is to cut spending ( except Gordon Brown & co of course ).

But hold on a minute folks - Brown could keep spending going and no cause a financial collapse as lenders refuse to fund him if ....

..if Brown raises TAXES.

Why is no one thinking of this ?

My guess is self censorship - everyone assume that no one would be suicidally stupid enough to raise taxes yet further when the productive part of the economy was already on it knees.

But I'm not so sure.

Socialism benefits from misery and destitution - and this plan would create much more of both. You can see why Labour might favour it..

Don't say I didn't warn you.