MORE TORY WAFFLE

This morning David Cameron was in a quandary.
His speech to the Tory conference was to contain the advice to people to pay their credit card bills and save more.
What a fool he was to consider this and he soon realise what a mistake he had made in many aspects.
He realised that he had made a mistake and hastily amended his speech (possibly some banker friends had been to see him).

First it is easy for him, a multimillionaire to advise squeezed families to cut their debts when the pain does not affect him and that statement would look bad on him from a political point of view.

BUT the main boob he made was that if people reduced their debts his banker friends would have less money to leech from. Also the "High Street" also owned by his rich friends would suffer.
Now I don't care if the high street shops do suffer as they create few jobs and build their business on importing Chinese tat which has the advantage of boosting the shops profits and the debts the banks hold on people.

I do believe that IF POSSIBLE people should endeavour to only buy what is absolutely necessary and pay their credit bills off. This would free them from the clutches of the bankers and other usurers, but the words are IF POSSIBLE.

I do think many people buy too much new stuff,(possibly because I am of an older generation), phones, cars, furniture etc when the items they have are adequate for their use. A look in skips and recycling facilities proves this.
The idea that all this consumption creates jobs is a myth.
Ninety percent of these purchases are foreign goods, and provide no employment in this country apart from the sales assistants.

If gradually over a period of years we could rid ourselves of this consumption obsession and the associated debt we would all be just as happy and a lot more prosperous.
The banks would be poorer as would people like Philip Green who has made his billions by buying cheap foreign tat and selling it at a good profit.

Most people have clothes they never wear much of it bought on credit and it is not necessary for a decent standard of living.

We have enough to pay out for council taxes and fuel, let alone food and these are the items which DO matter.

Now we come back to Mr Cameron.

It is no good him advising thrift when he is giving billions in foreign aid, spending in foreign wars and donating to the EU.


If we, the people did not have these weights around our necks we could have lower taxes and be able to pay our credit cards off.

BUT THEN THAT WOULD NOT SUIT YOUR BANKER FRIENDS.

Thrift like charity begins at home Mr Cameron. Don't tell us you are saving when in August your government spent twelve billion more than it took in taxes.

PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH MR CAMERON.

MORE PAINC AND CROCODILE TEARS

I was never one for literature but some sayings of our great poets are sometimes apt.

The constant preoccupation with the forthcoming BBC Panorama programme featuring the financial aspects of the BNP bring to mind the saying "methinks they doth protest too much"

On the BNP website there has over the last week been a constant theme of criticism of wrong practices of the BBC of which there are many, and now today asking why do they not concentrate on the fraud of the other parties.
There have been such programmes and no doubt there will in the future be more but the questions it seems in this programme are in relation to our party's affairs.

Yes we know corruption is rife in the BBC and the other parties but the questions are being now asked of our party. Whether these other bodies are corrupt is irrelevant, but two wrongs do not make a right.
This constant attack on a programme which has not yet been broadcast would give an impartial observer the impression that the Party does have something to hide and in itself does the Party no good.

Are they so afraid of scrutiny that their only defence is to attack other parties and organisations?

Why not be open if you have nothing to hide?

The belated "obituary" of David Hannam illustrates this mindset, implying that questions asked of him hastened his untimely demise.
If so it can only be because of his having been used by the hierarchy and been obliged to cover up failings.
At one point in this "obituary" he is praised for his work and advice in financial matters and a paragraph later said to be not up to the task.
He will be used as a convenient scapegoat. he deserves better than this.

He was a decent man who was USED and any deficiencies can not justifiably be laid at his door.
The buck in any organisation stops at the top, and David was not that man, just a pawn who, if his death has been caused by this programme ,paid the price of loyalty to a hierarchy who did not deserve such loyalty, nor it seems value him.

RIP David.

Your name will be remembered unsullied unlike some who used you.