Snouts in the Trough

I’ll keep it short today as I’ve already explained in great detail why I believe Putin’s actions over the Crimea were justified, decisive and skilful: why I believe the West’s response is dishonest, hypocritical and dangerous and why I’m amazed that our useless leaders are trying to fight the last (Cold) war rather than allying with Russia against our common enemy – radical Islam (though some readers might be tempted to take out the word ‘radical’).

Anyway, as Putin looks at the West’s military capabilities, how afraid is he? Here’s a picture of four neat-looking ladies (click to see more clearly)

But do you know who they are? Former models? No. Successful business-women? No. Hyper-shopping wives of political leaders? No. In fact, they’re all defence ministers from key European countries. From left to right there’s Norway, Sweden, Netherlands and Germany. Whooaar! as the Sun might say, nice totty!

I don’t mean to be sexist and I’m sure these ladies have many talents – nudge, nudge, wink, wink. But how many of them are battle-hardened warriors with a deep understanding of military matters? How many of them have any experience of warfare, apart from fighting their way through the crowds at the January sales? And how many of them got their jobs due to political correctness rather than relevant experience?

Perhaps it’s surprising that they’re not all Muslim women? After all, that really would tick all the political correctness boxes. Though maybe in a few years they will be?

In contrast, here are a few photos of Sergei Shoigu. He’s the Russian defence minister.

I doubt Sergei has heard of political correctness. But I bet he knows how to handle himself on a battlefield. And that’s probably an important and relevant qualification for a defence minister.

So, how afraid is Putin of Europe’s handbag-wielding totty? Probably not quaking in his boots.

But if you’ve 2 to 3 minutes spare, here’s some gun-totting totty we should all really be afraid of. This is a tape-recording of the “democratic” (actually utterly corrupt, embezzling, as rotten as Yanukovich) darling of the West, former Ukrainian PM Yulia Tymoshenko, discussing how she wants to kill as many ‘f**k*ng Russians’ as she can and also nuke Russia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RxSzSWbcxo Lucky she doesn’t have any nuclear weapons left in the Ukraine or else we’d all be hiding under the kitchen table.

(I’m selling about one copy of GREED UNLIMITED a week. Can anybody please show their support for this website by upping that figure just a little?)

Let’s imagine a friend or financial adviser called you up and suggested you invest your life savings in a promising company called Great Britain Plc (GB).

The first thing you asked might be, “could you tell me a bit about the top management of GB?”

“Well”, your contact replies, “the CEO used to work in the PR department and has never run a major organisation or even department before. But he seems nice enough, though a bit vacuous. The Financial Director is one of the CEO’s closest chums, but has no financial qualifications – in fact he’s a history graduate with no real work experience apart from folding towels in a department store”.

 “What about the rest of the management team? Surely they know what they’re doing?” could be your next question.

“Umm,” your contact hesitates for a moment, “actually most of them have been caught fiddling their expenses and using company money to pay partners, friends and children as supposedly working for them. One is a convicted criminal and another a fraudster. And they’ve been pushing for more generous expenses and a massive pay rise even though GB’s results get worse every year and its share price has fallen by about 30% in the last 5 years”.

By now, you’re not feeling too excited about the prospect of investing your cash in GB. But, just in case there’s something you’ve overlooked, you ask, “what’s GB’s financial situation like?”

There’s a long silence, then finally your contact admits, “unfortunately GB spends £750m for every £650m it earns, its debt is rising by £100m a year and markets will soon lose confidence in GB’s management. In just five years from 2010 to 2015, GB’s debt will have doubled from £700m to £1.4bn and soon the company will only be able to borrow money at almost extortionate rates of interest. Unless GB’s management do something pretty drastic and do it quickly, GB may go  bankrupt” (click to see picture more clearly)

Hearing this, you politely suggest that there’s no way you’d consider putting your hard-earned money into a seemingly obvious disaster like GB.

 “Ah,” your contact quickly replies, “it’s not as bad as it looks. There’s a very strong rumour that a new management team will be taking over GB in May 2015”.

By this time, you’re pretty doubtful this will improve the situation. But out of politeness you ask, “what’s the new management team like? Have they a better record than the current team?”

“The person likely to be the next CEO is quite young and was most people’s second choice for the job. Everybody preferred his brother, whom he stabbed in the back to get his job. He was very close to the former Financial Director, who got booted out 4 years ago when GB got into severe financial difficulties. He has little to no experience and isn’t really that impressive. In fact, most people think he’s a bit of a nerd,” your contact hesitatingly reveals.

“And” your contact continues, “the likely next Financial Director is a loud-mouthed bully who was very closely involved in the last management team but one. During a time when business was booming, they unfortunately more than doubled spending while revenue only increased by about 60% and they pushed GB’s debt from £350m to over £700m even though sales had never been so good. This meant that when business conditions worsened, as they always do after a period of unusually strong growth, GB got into real financial trouble and the whole of the previous management team was replaced”.

“So,” you ask your contact, “you’re telling me that key members of the team responsible for wrecking GB’s finances will soon be back in charge?”

 “Yes” you contact replies, “but although they won’t admit to making any major mistakes last time they were running GB, they’ve promised to be a little more careful if they take over in 2015. So, it’s a great investment with a great future”.

Being a rather cynical person, you’re not convinced and decide to put your money elsewhere – Australia Plc, for example, or even Russia Plc as both seem to have quite tough CEOs.

Now, I don’t know whether comparing a country with a company is valid. But what this little parable tells me is that Britain’s future looks a little worrying as neither of the two management teams likely to run the country have a track record of success. And neither has either the ideas or the courage to solve Great Britain’s financial problems.

Oh dear, that’s ruined my weekend. I wish I’d never written this.

I first read this story on the Voice of Russia website. So, I assumed that it was just invented anti-EU propaganda. But it turns out that the story is actually true www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4001000.ece

Mr Barroso and his fellow corrupt, self-serving, greedy, unelected komissars have come up with a brilliant new plan to boost economic growth in the stagnant EU which is being crushed by their economically-illiterate policies. Hooray for Barroso! Maybe he’s about to deliver our EU masters’ promise to us: “the Euro will lead to full employment and make Europe the competitive powerhouse of the world“.

Here’s Barosso’s plan: The EU is enforcing rules which require countries to estimate how much cash changes hands on their black markets. Those figures will be taken into account when calculating national GDP and allocating the £120bn Brussels budget.

The EU officials say the change will ensure consistent economic comparisons between member states.

As prostitution and drug use is legal in some member states, like the Netherlands and umm the Netherlands and there’s also umm errr the Netherlands, officials say it is only fair for other states to include these activities in their national accounts.

Prostitution in the UK is expected to be valued at £3bn/year and drug dealing at around £7bn.

Rules from 1998 say criminal activity should be included in GDP calculations. But until now the rules have been ignored. The UK Office for National Statistics will reveal statistics for the size of the illegal industries this spring.

The £10bn inclusion of criminal industries will have a trivial impact on the UK GDP which currently stands at £1.6trn. But the change will make a big difference to poorer countries, particularly the Club Med states, where people in their desperation are more likely to have turned to drugs and/or prostitution, pushing up their GDP by several percentage points and increasing their share of the EU pie.

Greece tried to exploit the rule in 2006. Officials doctored their figures to try and reduce the budget deficit. Economic gains from prostitution, drugs and money laundering caused the country’s GDP to shoot up by 25% overnight.

But last spring the European Parliament insisted it was time for other countries to follow the rules. These require countries to include only those illegal activities where a transaction takes place between two willing parties. Robbery, kidnapping for a ransom and blackmail, for example, will not count.

One interesting point this story raises is: if it was mentioned on the supposedly biased Voice of Russia, why wasn’t it mentioned on the supposedly unbiased BBC?

(Tomorrow – a shocking message/warning from President Putin)

I don’t suppose many readers had the time to watch the whole of Vladimir Putin’s speech yesterday. Being unemployed with nothing better to do, I saw the whole thing. My conclusion – Putin was wonderful. He was clear, focused, direct and devastating in the way he used withering sarcasm to expose the hypocrisy of our lying leaders.

Some of the points Putin made:

Crimea belonged to Russia – Crimea has been part of Russia for hundreds of years, apart from the brief period from 1954 to 2014.

Russia being pushed into a corner – The EU made a territory grab too far when it tried to pull the Ukraine away from Russia. Russia would not tolerate NATO tanks on its borders

Important naval base – Russia had its most important naval base in the Crimea and would not accept that base being handed over to NATO. As he said, “I would rather NATO troops came to visit us in the Crimea, than we came to visit them”

Clear referendum result – The referendum to become independent may have been rushed, but the results were so overwhelmingly in favour of independence that there could be no doubt that the Crimeans didn’t want to become part of an EU-controlled Ukraine

West’s hypocrisy over Ukrainian law – The West claims that the Crimea referendum for independence and then joining Russia broke Ukrainian law. However, when Kosovo broke Serbian law when it voted to become independent, the UN (pushed by the West) decided that the right of people to self-determination over-rode any national laws

West’s hypocrisy over international law – The West claims that Russia has broken international law by taking over the Crimea. Putin pointed out that after the West’s illegal invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, it was good that the West finally remembered there was such a thing as international law

Nobody killed – When Putin made his speech, nobody had been killed in the Crimea, unlike the West’s disastrous military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan

Irresponsible statements from our leaders – Given the above points, Putin (correctly in my opinion) accused our leaders of making reckless and irresponsible statements and threats that could damage international relations and economic recovery.

But perhaps the most important message we can take from the Putin speech is the contrast between when Putin speaks and when our own leaders do. With Putin you know he says what he thinks and he’ll do what he says. You can’t really say the same for puffed-up, inane, lying, self-serving, greedy, incompetent muppets like Chameleon, Clogg, Milibrain, Baroness Pig, Kerry and President O’Bummer.

(By the way, Mr Cameron, please note how rapidly a referendum can be organised if a leader really wants one)

Today I thought I’d take a break from all the doom-and-gloom, we’re-all-about-to-die stories and write about something positive – Mind Maps. If you, your family and children and people you work with regularly use Mind Maps, then there’s no need to read any further. But if you don’t use them, then please read on.

The problem Often when given a task – making a presentation, writing an essay, doing a project, writing an article or book, organising a meeting or conference, developing a plan, dreaming up a new marketing approach, producing a sales brochure – many people struggle to find sufficient things to talk/write about. This is partly because we think in a linear fashion. So, we’ll jot down a few ideas then start to dry up.

The solution – Mind Maps These help us break our pattern of linear thinking and generate a huge number of ideas in just 5 to 10 minutes. I tend to use them when planning a book or when preparing a talk. They’re particularly effective for school children and students. If some of your brood are ever agonising over what to write for an essay or your team at work are having difficulty with some task or other – help them do a Mind Map and you’ll usually be surprised at how quickly the Mind Map sets their thoughts free. I wish I’d been taught how to do Mind Maps when I was at school and university.

How to do a Mind Map They’re very simple. You just write the subject of the task in the centre of a piece of paper or flip chart then start drawing branches as ideas occur to you. Then each branch will tend to lead to other sub-branches and these will in their turn lead to sub-sub-branches and so on. Here’s an example I found on Google (click to see more clearly)

So, if was giving a talk about say “Money”, I’d write “Money” in the centre of the page then some of my primary branches would be things like banks, savings, pensions, annuities etc. Each of these would lead to sub-branches, for example “pensions” might lead to SIPPs, charges, state pension, retirement etc. And each of these would lead to sub-sub-branches.

And here’s a Mind Map looking at the possible uses of Mind Maps (click to see more clearly)