
Breaking silence here......
I took the self imposed gag off eventually when I read that we (I mean the government), is to decide whether to give another £17.5 BILLION of our money (I mean their money), to the IMF. Of course we all know it will happen and this so called news item is merely a political front for us thicko public who have to pay the money, but we might as well pretend to be as much outraged about it as the government is. 'Pretending' that is. Of course they must be in pretence as they know (as we do), that really they have no choice to give the money. I say 'no choice' loosely here as quite obvious as it may seem, we do have a government and a parliament that decides such matters and I guess (obviously), that they are undecided beforehand? Or is that naive or just plain daft to suppose?
I say actually that the government and we in this country, are between a rock and a hard place in terms of whether we give the IMF more money or we do not. I mean think of the consequences if we do not. Firstly: We will forevermore be made to look mean and our international investments will become threatened. It's a form of blackmail I know. But they don't see it that way obviously. However do we really want other countries pulling the plug on much of what we as a nation do to invest inside their countries, which earns the nation money?
Secondly: imagine David Cameron now. He is metaphorically with the phone in one ear to the IMF and on the other ear with the British public. The British public are shouting 'we will never vote for you again if you give money to the IMF', and the IMF are shouting 'we will never give business to you again if you don't give us your money'. Sort of like Al Capone would threaten his 'business associates'. So Cameron loses unless we can be convinced that giving money away is really a good idea, and I guess only if he is right (that the public are thicko's), will he be able to convince some of us to keep voting for him. I hasten to add 'not me'.
The money is 'apparently' to support countries and not currencies and this is where I had to remove my gag to ask 'what is the difference'? I mean it sounds good but can you or anyone else enlighten me further as to why monetary assistance would even be required for a country that had a 'strong currency'? Tick tick tick....waiting for reply, and I am definitely going to be listening to the farce, err commons debates on whether we approve as a nation (without having been asked), whether to give the Mafia, err the IMF more money. After all, we know that it won't be used to shore up the pile of cinders we call the Euro, because David Cameron has said it is for countries not for currencies and we always believe politicians don't we.
Incidentally, we are about to be given S&P's credit rating and I wonder which way it would go if we said no to the IMF? If my predictions are correct, then soon we will say yes to the IMF and S&P will say everything is fine with our credit rating. I will put my gag back on because it is really a waste of time complaining about it and since there's no democracy anywhere on the planet except perhaps in the boardroom of the Bundesbank which refuses to shore up the pile of cinders we call the Euro. Incidentally do they know something we don't?
So as I see it, we have as a nation these last few years come from Northern Rock to a hard place and interesting times lie ahead for most of us, more frugle years certainly, and it's carry on as usual for the likes of Richard Branson and for the mob at the IMF.
I took the self imposed gag off eventually when I read that we (I mean the government), is to decide whether to give another £17.5 BILLION of our money (I mean their money), to the IMF. Of course we all know it will happen and this so called news item is merely a political front for us thicko public who have to pay the money, but we might as well pretend to be as much outraged about it as the government is. 'Pretending' that is. Of course they must be in pretence as they know (as we do), that really they have no choice to give the money. I say 'no choice' loosely here as quite obvious as it may seem, we do have a government and a parliament that decides such matters and I guess (obviously), that they are undecided beforehand? Or is that naive or just plain daft to suppose?
I say actually that the government and we in this country, are between a rock and a hard place in terms of whether we give the IMF more money or we do not. I mean think of the consequences if we do not. Firstly: We will forevermore be made to look mean and our international investments will become threatened. It's a form of blackmail I know. But they don't see it that way obviously. However do we really want other countries pulling the plug on much of what we as a nation do to invest inside their countries, which earns the nation money?
Secondly: imagine David Cameron now. He is metaphorically with the phone in one ear to the IMF and on the other ear with the British public. The British public are shouting 'we will never vote for you again if you give money to the IMF', and the IMF are shouting 'we will never give business to you again if you don't give us your money'. Sort of like Al Capone would threaten his 'business associates'. So Cameron loses unless we can be convinced that giving money away is really a good idea, and I guess only if he is right (that the public are thicko's), will he be able to convince some of us to keep voting for him. I hasten to add 'not me'.
The money is 'apparently' to support countries and not currencies and this is where I had to remove my gag to ask 'what is the difference'? I mean it sounds good but can you or anyone else enlighten me further as to why monetary assistance would even be required for a country that had a 'strong currency'? Tick tick tick....waiting for reply, and I am definitely going to be listening to the farce, err commons debates on whether we approve as a nation (without having been asked), whether to give the Mafia, err the IMF more money. After all, we know that it won't be used to shore up the pile of cinders we call the Euro, because David Cameron has said it is for countries not for currencies and we always believe politicians don't we.
Incidentally, we are about to be given S&P's credit rating and I wonder which way it would go if we said no to the IMF? If my predictions are correct, then soon we will say yes to the IMF and S&P will say everything is fine with our credit rating. I will put my gag back on because it is really a waste of time complaining about it and since there's no democracy anywhere on the planet except perhaps in the boardroom of the Bundesbank which refuses to shore up the pile of cinders we call the Euro. Incidentally do they know something we don't?
So as I see it, we have as a nation these last few years come from Northern Rock to a hard place and interesting times lie ahead for most of us, more frugle years certainly, and it's carry on as usual for the likes of Richard Branson and for the mob at the IMF.








