Summary of Party Free Politics and World Financial Armageddon

In Politics One to Four I advocated that, here in the UK, we should adopt a system of government that does not involve party politics, some of the suggestions I made are listed below in condensed form.
Persons wishing to be candidates for election must have lived in the constituency for the specified periods I mooted, they must not be members of a political party.
Voters can force "their " MP to resign.
MPs can force an MP to resign.
MPs can force any Minister or Deputy Minister to give up their office.
MPs elect the Prime Minister as well as any other Ministers or Deputies.
The speaker is not a MP but can be an ex MP. MPs can force the Speaker to resign.
MPs elect a Speaker when required.
I have suggested that the number of MPs could be reduced to 300 and that that 50 members, all elected, should be sufficient in the House of Lords. I have also suggested that more suitable names should be found for "Commons" and "Lords".

The recent and prolonged exposure of the advantage, that many MPs have taken, of various opportunities to greatly increase their financial affluence have been, I feel, absolutely mind blowing. [Kindly refer to the last paragraph in this blog] This drive by many MPs to enrich themselves is surely reflected in the rash symptomatic behaviour, albeit on a hugely larger scale, that led to the World Financial Armageddon. In my opinion the time is ripe for the drastic changes I have advanced regarding a more democratic and efficient way of governing the UK.

As I type these words, on 15/08/2009, there have been minor signs that have led to some experts suggesting that the worst of the "economic downturn" [oh what spin] is over, other authorities are much more cautious. In no way do I consider myself an expert on world economics [look where the experts have taken the world] but I just have the feeling, deep inside, that my choice of the word Armageddon to describe the state of the world's financial system cannot be faulted. In spite of all the evidence in support of this supposition there are signs, anything but minor, that the pieces are being picked up and attempts are being made to stick them back together, [along with more fantastic salaries and bonuses] in my opinion these attempts defy the totally logical assumption that something better has to be found. As a starting point every country in the world should nationalise their major banks. This statement will obviously give rise to instantaneous howls of derisory laughter. Can we all laugh at the way, seemingly countless, trillions of units of the world's currencies have been poured into the WORLD'S banking systems. This was to save the world from the effects of the Financial Armageddon that private ownership of the banks has created. In this the banks were ably supported by the various money making offspring that they fathered. Please, please do not tell me that, as with party politics, something better cannot, and must, be found.

This last paragraph returns to the matter of MPs expenses. A very revealing insight into the mindset of many MPs, in regard to their expenses, were the different attempts that were made to prevent details being published. This resulted, I would surmise, in many people, including me, reaching for a dictionary to see if there actually was a word "redact" and if so what did it mean, in the dictionary I used there there was some consolation in so far as it was qualified as "rare". Of real annoyance to me was an article in a magazine that drew my attention to the fact that Commons' officials, by mistake, shredded the documents pertaining to some of Mr Tony Blair's expenses for the period 2001-2. Is that the end of the story? If it is I do not think it should be. Surely there must be cross checks available, one source would be Mr Blair's bank statements or his copies of his claims for expenses; the article stated that the documents were the subject of a legal challenge. If the Commons officials involved did anything wrong they should be held to account. There should be a very thorough enquiry into this matter. Finally why should MPs be secretive about their home addresses; exposure to the public eye, and the subsequent risks involved go with the job.

Frederick W Gilling. 15/08/2009