The political panacea

If words had the power to move mountains. Every time a politician gets to his/her feet he showers us with opportunity to do things !
David Cameron has just completed, for some, a barnstorming speech on how to fix the country.

We can imagine him clearing his desk, calling in each minister in turn to demand action. Or can we ? The probability is that nothing will change.
We have double vision. We watch the performance and admire the script, some of us doubt  the veracity of the actor but with our eyes open we see no changes, no resulting improvement to the countries lot.
And yet we have no alternative. We have to believe or, disbelieving, we have to accept what the government of the day does and says it will do. We can sack them every 5 years but by the time that comes around we will have been sweet talked into holding our breath again. Unlike a marriage the field of suitors to our political union is limited.
If you are keen on 'defence' but want more to be done for the 'less well off', if your 'humanity' clashes with 'practicality' then there is no one group to represent you.
The fact is that politics has become a sound bite, issue orientated, ideologically driven business of obfuscation. The true picture, warts and all, is never given or debated sensibly. For every thing there is a cost.
George Osborn's drive to balance the books leaves many people in dire straights. Is it worth the hardship to show you can be stringent with your spending whilst not being affected by the stress and the profound damage you are inflicting on people's lives. Perhaps if the case was spelt out more clearly and the notes from our creditors made public. If the true nature of our economic plight was clearer then we would all know what sacrifices we have to make. Of course we "all" have to make the sacrifice not just the poor and it's the deliberate discrepancy between who brings the accounts into balance that is at issue.
Does it make sense in such a troubled world to suggest that we reduce our spending on the one deterrent which nations, (other than perhaps ISIL), properly fear, a Nuclear retaliation.
An ideological stance dating back even before the Cold War, based on the assumption "that someone has to make a stance against Atomic war and mass destruction", is the philosophy that Jeremy Corbyn has carried throughout his life. But as more nations tend towards arming themselves with the Nuclear trigger, is this the time?
The "extremes" are always bad places to start making a justification for your own ideological position and it doesn't make one an insincere person to find that there are things in other political  manifesto that you wished were in your own ideal panacea.