My blogs have have taken a back seat for a while as I have been sending in comments on various critical matters facing the world. Mainly these comments have been on the very good platforms provided by the Telegraph. Several of the articles, written by their columnists, have garnered hundreds of comments. All shades of opinion are the order of the day and as they represent the views of a cross section of the population, politicians and the top personnel in financial institutions should take note of them.
World financial matters continue to promote heated debate and some radical suggested solutions. In one of today's papers it was inferred that some RBS staff would share a £2 billion windfall for 9 months work. Information given indicating that RBS had, at one stage, £250 billion of toxic loans was, to say the least, interesting. One of the suggestions that I have advocated is that every country in the world should nationalise its banks and any financial institutions deemed to pose a threat to its economic stability. How many countries are close, technically, to bankruptcy?
Frederick W Gilling 19:30 hrs GMT Saturday 06 November 2010.
Saturday 6 November 2010
Friday 15 October 2010
Coping classes,middle classes.
There have been several articles recently in the UK about "classes". A recent one was headed "Middle classes hit again with tax raid on pensions".
I commented: Some people can free themselves from the binding shackles of mindset, I must confess that I am not yet a member of that illustrious club, attempts to join it founder when confronted with, " ----- currently save £225,000 a year and still receive relief ----- " [ this relief being in respect of reduced taxation]
" ----- It is currently capped at £1.8 million but will be reduced to £1,5 million ----- ". [ this was in respect of the size of a pension pot that could be accrued] There were several sarcastic comments about these amounts being out of the reach of most people, let alone the middle class.
My comment then went on: My mindset is that we are still gripped by various "spin offs" caused by the death throes of The World Financial Armageddon, this hit on the middle classes being an example. This mindset of mine also embraces the total logic of nationalising our banks and any financial institution whose actions could threaten the economic stability of our country.
My comment ended there. However in trying, at every opportunity, to expand my grasp of world finance I am continually amazed. and often baffled and exasperated, at the multiplicity of terms and abbreviations used. One little gem was that one section of the LSE could handle a trade in 124 micro seconds, this supported an observation by another expert that if one did not have the latest super fast computer you would not be in the hunt.In following the various leads one could be forgiven for thinking that that financially the end is nigh. One "expert" had it that America was just about to print another few trillion more dollars as that was legal, this should have the same effect on China as imposing a tariff on imports which was not legal.
I close with the observation that if many of the statistics quoted could also be given on a per capita basis it may be conducive to a better understanding of any problem that has built up.
Taking per capita to include all ages, how many dollars does each person in America need to give to their Government to equal the dollars that China already holds? If the number of dollars that China holds was to be divided up equally among their population how many dollars would each person get?
Frederick W Gilling 17:50 hrs BST Friday 15 October 2010.
I commented: Some people can free themselves from the binding shackles of mindset, I must confess that I am not yet a member of that illustrious club, attempts to join it founder when confronted with, " ----- currently save £225,000 a year and still receive relief ----- " [ this relief being in respect of reduced taxation]
" ----- It is currently capped at £1.8 million but will be reduced to £1,5 million ----- ". [ this was in respect of the size of a pension pot that could be accrued] There were several sarcastic comments about these amounts being out of the reach of most people, let alone the middle class.
My comment then went on: My mindset is that we are still gripped by various "spin offs" caused by the death throes of The World Financial Armageddon, this hit on the middle classes being an example. This mindset of mine also embraces the total logic of nationalising our banks and any financial institution whose actions could threaten the economic stability of our country.
My comment ended there. However in trying, at every opportunity, to expand my grasp of world finance I am continually amazed. and often baffled and exasperated, at the multiplicity of terms and abbreviations used. One little gem was that one section of the LSE could handle a trade in 124 micro seconds, this supported an observation by another expert that if one did not have the latest super fast computer you would not be in the hunt.In following the various leads one could be forgiven for thinking that that financially the end is nigh. One "expert" had it that America was just about to print another few trillion more dollars as that was legal, this should have the same effect on China as imposing a tariff on imports which was not legal.
I close with the observation that if many of the statistics quoted could also be given on a per capita basis it may be conducive to a better understanding of any problem that has built up.
Taking per capita to include all ages, how many dollars does each person in America need to give to their Government to equal the dollars that China already holds? If the number of dollars that China holds was to be divided up equally among their population how many dollars would each person get?
Frederick W Gilling 17:50 hrs BST Friday 15 October 2010.
Friday 24 September 2010
Recent studying of world finance.
Very surprised at passage of time since my last blog. The main reason being commenting on various sites as I try to push forward the subject of Nationalising financial institutions.
In trying to expand my knowledge of world finance I have followed various leads to information available on line. If anyone is interested there are numerous trails to follow, I must have only scratched the surface. BRIC nations, FIAT money, regulatory arbitrage, time value of money,/
moneyterms.co.uk/ QE2, FOMC, TARP, FSLIC, South Sea Bubble, Mississippi Bubble, Investopedia, PIIGS, IEA, CDS, Lehman Brothers, IFRS, IASB, FASB, GAAP, FDIC, LBMA, MPC, ECB, Short Selling, Derivatives, IMF, Austrian School of Economics, Hedge Funds, Bear Sterns, Rothschild Bank of London, Goldman Sachs and The Cobden Centre to name a few.
I do not know when banking as we know it started but, for example, it must have been well established in 1720 at the time of the South Sea Bubble. Through the centuries bank failures and other periods of mayhem in world finance have caused widespread misery. Perhaps none more so than during the last few years and, if anything there is more misery to come. Attempts to regulate the financial institutions have clearly failed yet even more regulations are at this moment being devised. The need to nationalise financial institutions has, in my opinion, never been more clearly highlighted.
Frederick W Gilling 12 Noon BST Friday 24 September 2010.
In trying to expand my knowledge of world finance I have followed various leads to information available on line. If anyone is interested there are numerous trails to follow, I must have only scratched the surface. BRIC nations, FIAT money, regulatory arbitrage, time value of money,/
moneyterms.co.uk/ QE2, FOMC, TARP, FSLIC, South Sea Bubble, Mississippi Bubble, Investopedia, PIIGS, IEA, CDS, Lehman Brothers, IFRS, IASB, FASB, GAAP, FDIC, LBMA, MPC, ECB, Short Selling, Derivatives, IMF, Austrian School of Economics, Hedge Funds, Bear Sterns, Rothschild Bank of London, Goldman Sachs and The Cobden Centre to name a few.
I do not know when banking as we know it started but, for example, it must have been well established in 1720 at the time of the South Sea Bubble. Through the centuries bank failures and other periods of mayhem in world finance have caused widespread misery. Perhaps none more so than during the last few years and, if anything there is more misery to come. Attempts to regulate the financial institutions have clearly failed yet even more regulations are at this moment being devised. The need to nationalise financial institutions has, in my opinion, never been more clearly highlighted.
Frederick W Gilling 12 Noon BST Friday 24 September 2010.
Wednesday 25 August 2010
Nationalise Banks
In trying to expand my knowledge of the world's financial systems I have followed numerous leads, garnered from comments on various related articles, by the finance columnists of the main UK newspapers. The more and more I read about world financial matters the more convinced I am that every country should nationalise its own banks and introduce strict regulations as to what may or may not be done with money.
Pure logic dictates these moves.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 25 August 2010.
Pure logic dictates these moves.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 25 August 2010.
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Initial impressions of PCC Governance Review
My initial impression of the Panel's report was of disappointment. I was busy with other matters when the eagerly awaited report was published, but I did note comments on it in various places and these had to suffice until I was able to devote more time to reading the 26 page report. An index to the whole report would have been extremely useful. I would then have been able to double check several subjects, notably any reference to "Head Lines" as such and I did not see a section headed, for example, "The rights of Complainants".
In appendix three there are 75 recommendations as evidence of the hard work that the panel members must have exerted. My impression is that a few ripples may have been created on the surface of the PCC's pond, surely there was scope for a large wave or two, or even a tsunami. The latter, in the form of Government regulation, maybe the only force that will wipe out the downside of the power of the press.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 28 July 2010
In appendix three there are 75 recommendations as evidence of the hard work that the panel members must have exerted. My impression is that a few ripples may have been created on the surface of the PCC's pond, surely there was scope for a large wave or two, or even a tsunami. The latter, in the form of Government regulation, maybe the only force that will wipe out the downside of the power of the press.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 28 July 2010
Wednesday 19 May 2010
Voting Systems. Part Five.
The 12 suggested systems are then made public. Two weeks after this the four committees meet as one and, after agreeing on any amendments that would facilitate the amalgamation of any systems that are broadly similar, they then list the remaining systems, both amended or original in order of preference and again state what they consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of each suggested system. These findings are then made public and are formally submitted to the UK Supreme Court for their advice as to whether they infringe any current UK laws, with particular reference to those covering Human Rights. There are, I am sure, internationally acclaimed academics who have studied voting systems and at this stage their comments should be formally invited on the "home grown" systems. Also at this stage the public are invited to put any concerns about any of the suggestions to their MP, before or at, two meetings with their MP held in their constituency. Finally the suggestions are discussed in the House of Commons and in a free vote, three of the suggestions are chosen to be placed before the electorate in a referendum. At least it can be claimed that MPs were given every opportunity to "Get it Right".
I feel that legislation is urgently needed to lay down clear cut "musts" in regard to candidates having to prove long residential and/or "working in" links with the constituency in which they wish to stand. Having stated that, it follows, that I must favour the selection of a voting system that ensures that the person selected to be an MP has legally confirmed ties with the constituency they will represent.
Whatever voting system selected in a referendum is used, it obviously has the approval of those qualified to vote. I have suggested that three systems are exposed to the public in a referendum in the hope that three suggestions are clearly enough, if it is thought otherwise then more options could be offered. When I say it will not be easy I must hope that I am proved to be totally wrong. However please click on "Voting Systems" if you have several hours/days to spare! Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010.
I feel that legislation is urgently needed to lay down clear cut "musts" in regard to candidates having to prove long residential and/or "working in" links with the constituency in which they wish to stand. Having stated that, it follows, that I must favour the selection of a voting system that ensures that the person selected to be an MP has legally confirmed ties with the constituency they will represent.
Whatever voting system selected in a referendum is used, it obviously has the approval of those qualified to vote. I have suggested that three systems are exposed to the public in a referendum in the hope that three suggestions are clearly enough, if it is thought otherwise then more options could be offered. When I say it will not be easy I must hope that I am proved to be totally wrong. However please click on "Voting Systems" if you have several hours/days to spare! Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010.
Voting Systems. Part Four.
My second objection to a simple proportional representation way of determining the result of an election is that it presupposes the existence of political parties. This supposition is fully justified at the moment but parties should not, in my opinion, be encouraged. I am totally convinced that Party Free Politics [PFP] is the most democratic, fair and effective way of governing a country. Voters can practically force the acceptance of PFP by voting for an Independent candidate. My suggestions on politics and several other vital matters can be seen courtesy the Google Search Engine and http://blrcfwgblogspot.com
Early statements from our new Coalition Conservative Lib Dem Government indicate that there will be discussion centred on the voting system we use here. Which could lead to a referendum as to whether or not we wish to use a different system. Having "logged on" to Voting Systems several times I can state, with a high degree of certainty, that choosing a different system will not be easy. Hence the following suggestions which are just aimed at providing a framework for discussion.
The Conservative MPs select ten of their MPs to form a committee.
The Labour MPs do likewise.
The Lib Dem MPs do likewise.
The "Other" Mps do likewise.
These committees will represent a wide spectrum of political opinion and I feel this is needed as different types of voting systems can be selected or devised to favour different sized political parties.
These committees, acting completely independently of each other, are tasked with the job of listing, in order of preference, three voting systems that they consider should be placed before the electorate in a referendum. A proviso here is that they can include the present system in the three named systems. They must also clearly state what they consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of each system and why they ranked them in the order they listed.
This blog will continue in Voting Systems Part Five, starting "The 12 suggested systems ---- "
Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010.
Early statements from our new Coalition Conservative Lib Dem Government indicate that there will be discussion centred on the voting system we use here. Which could lead to a referendum as to whether or not we wish to use a different system. Having "logged on" to Voting Systems several times I can state, with a high degree of certainty, that choosing a different system will not be easy. Hence the following suggestions which are just aimed at providing a framework for discussion.
The Conservative MPs select ten of their MPs to form a committee.
The Labour MPs do likewise.
The Lib Dem MPs do likewise.
The "Other" Mps do likewise.
These committees will represent a wide spectrum of political opinion and I feel this is needed as different types of voting systems can be selected or devised to favour different sized political parties.
These committees, acting completely independently of each other, are tasked with the job of listing, in order of preference, three voting systems that they consider should be placed before the electorate in a referendum. A proviso here is that they can include the present system in the three named systems. They must also clearly state what they consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of each system and why they ranked them in the order they listed.
This blog will continue in Voting Systems Part Five, starting "The 12 suggested systems ---- "
Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010.
Voting Systems. Part Three.
I have just returned to the keyboard, it is now 21:15 GMT [22:15 BST] on Tuesday 11 May.
A very interesting six hours watching, on TV, the run up to Mr Brown speaking outside No 10 before going, with his wife, to meet the Queen to formally resign from his position as Prime Minister, he then returned to No 10 and spoke outside again before going inside to thank his staff, friends and members of the Labour Party. While this was happening Mr Cameron, with his wife, was meeting the Queen to tell her that he was in a position to form a Government, she appointed him as Prime Minister, he was then driven back to No 10, spoke outside No 10 and then he and his wife went inside, job done! All very clinical, evidently most of the staff in No 1o do not change. Details of what the Conservatives and Lib Dems yielded from the yardsticks of their manifestos have not been announced yet. There was a suggestion that they had agreed on a fixed term between elections, very interesting, particularly when a coalition government is in place, as it will mean that a Prime Minister cannot call for an election when it best suits him or her, I am in favour of that.
The data produced above shows why the Liberal Democrats have favoured proportional representation for years. The claim is made that, quite fairly, it more truly reflects the wishes of the voters. I am not in favour of it on two accounts, the first is that though a person may vote for a candidate from a particular party there is no guarantee that, even though that candidate "won" that seat he or she will become an MP. It follows that every party will strive to nominate a candidate in every constituency because every vote counts, the fact that many candidates will be doomed to lose their deposits is immaterial. In the UK that could mean 650 candidates from each party will contest an election. If one party gets fifty percent of the total votes cast only 325 of their candidates will become MPs, those 325 being the top 325 names on the list prepared in order of preference by the party. It follows that many voters who supported a party may not have the faintest knowledge of the MP who is designated by the party to represent them and, what is more, the MP may not have any connection whatsoever with the constituency he or she has been chosen by the party hierarchy to represent. To counter some of these faults of pure proportional voting different amendments to the simplicity of the system have been mooted.
This blog will continue in Voting Systems Part Four, starting "My second objection ----- "
Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010.
A very interesting six hours watching, on TV, the run up to Mr Brown speaking outside No 10 before going, with his wife, to meet the Queen to formally resign from his position as Prime Minister, he then returned to No 10 and spoke outside again before going inside to thank his staff, friends and members of the Labour Party. While this was happening Mr Cameron, with his wife, was meeting the Queen to tell her that he was in a position to form a Government, she appointed him as Prime Minister, he was then driven back to No 10, spoke outside No 10 and then he and his wife went inside, job done! All very clinical, evidently most of the staff in No 1o do not change. Details of what the Conservatives and Lib Dems yielded from the yardsticks of their manifestos have not been announced yet. There was a suggestion that they had agreed on a fixed term between elections, very interesting, particularly when a coalition government is in place, as it will mean that a Prime Minister cannot call for an election when it best suits him or her, I am in favour of that.
The data produced above shows why the Liberal Democrats have favoured proportional representation for years. The claim is made that, quite fairly, it more truly reflects the wishes of the voters. I am not in favour of it on two accounts, the first is that though a person may vote for a candidate from a particular party there is no guarantee that, even though that candidate "won" that seat he or she will become an MP. It follows that every party will strive to nominate a candidate in every constituency because every vote counts, the fact that many candidates will be doomed to lose their deposits is immaterial. In the UK that could mean 650 candidates from each party will contest an election. If one party gets fifty percent of the total votes cast only 325 of their candidates will become MPs, those 325 being the top 325 names on the list prepared in order of preference by the party. It follows that many voters who supported a party may not have the faintest knowledge of the MP who is designated by the party to represent them and, what is more, the MP may not have any connection whatsoever with the constituency he or she has been chosen by the party hierarchy to represent. To counter some of these faults of pure proportional voting different amendments to the simplicity of the system have been mooted.
This blog will continue in Voting Systems Part Four, starting "My second objection ----- "
Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010.
Tuesday 18 May 2010
Voting Systems Part Two
Several weeks ago I clicked on to "Voting Systems", Wow, Wow, Wow! The history started in the sixth century BC and systemS certainly deserves the plural, you name it, many basic systems plus ever more complicated variations. In recent years some of these systems have been analysed, supported and added to by brilliant mathematicians aided by the number crunching facilities built into electronic computers.
No doubt persons trying to come up with a "fair" voting system have laid down the foundations by asking voters what they think the system should do. As an example I suggest that one aim should be to try and give all voters the feeling that their vote mattered, that some MP would take notice of what they felt or said. I feel that it is essential for all minds to be able, at least, to acknowledge that democracy itself is being observed in full, even if a particular decision has not gone their way.
Changing the UK system has featured in the minds of members of at least two of the parties in the general election just held here. One of these, the Liberal Democrats, is very much in support of Proportional Representation. In its purest guise this aims to award the seats to parties pro rata to the percentage of the total vote that the parties receive.
Rounding off some of the percentages, and with sincere apologies to the parties shown as "other" for not splitting them up, yields the following data.
Conservatives. Actual seats 306 % of vote 36 Seats under PR= 234
Labour. ----------------------- 258 ----------- 29 ----------------------188
Lib - Dem.--- -------------------57 ------------23 -----------------------149
Others.--- -----------------------28 ------------12 -----------------------78
This blog will be continued in Voting Systems Part Three. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010
No doubt persons trying to come up with a "fair" voting system have laid down the foundations by asking voters what they think the system should do. As an example I suggest that one aim should be to try and give all voters the feeling that their vote mattered, that some MP would take notice of what they felt or said. I feel that it is essential for all minds to be able, at least, to acknowledge that democracy itself is being observed in full, even if a particular decision has not gone their way.
Changing the UK system has featured in the minds of members of at least two of the parties in the general election just held here. One of these, the Liberal Democrats, is very much in support of Proportional Representation. In its purest guise this aims to award the seats to parties pro rata to the percentage of the total vote that the parties receive.
Rounding off some of the percentages, and with sincere apologies to the parties shown as "other" for not splitting them up, yields the following data.
Conservatives. Actual seats 306 % of vote 36 Seats under PR= 234
Labour. ----------------------- 258 ----------- 29 ----------------------188
Lib - Dem.--- -------------------57 ------------23 -----------------------149
Others.--- -----------------------28 ------------12 -----------------------78
This blog will be continued in Voting Systems Part Three. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Wednesday 19 May 2010
Voting Systems Part One
Started at 15:00 hrs GMT on Tuesday 11 May 2010. I have noted those exact details because,
as I write, some four plus days after the General Election, I do not know which party, or combination of parties will form the new Government of the UK. However I do know that if the information from the "ears and eyes of flies on the walls" or "insights" into the minds of all the politicians and spin doctors involved could be communicated into my fingers, they should be able to type a best selling book exposing some of the shortcomings of politics in general and Party Politics in particular, in my opinion there are plenty of those.
To be fair I would surmise that several rays of unmitigated brilliance "for the good of the country"may well have penetrated the foggy curtains surrounding the horse trading rings.
I must confess though that since the election results confirmed the expectation of a Hung Parliament I have winced many times over the reference, by MPs trying to form a Government, to "working in the National Interest". Surely MPs should always be working in the National Interest, that is absolute par for the course.
Freely admitting that there are millions of people, with a much greater depth of knowledge than I in regard to UK politics, I wonder if the following observation could be clarified. Since WW Two there have been at least two occasions when the party in control had an overwhelming majority. How come they failed to retain the support of the voters who put them into such power? Could it be that the party in power, bolstered by that power, were showing signs of moving too far to the left or right? Are the "Floating/Swinging" voters who helped them into power so easily displeased or swayed by the promises in a rival party's manifesto, or did the party in power not live up to theirs? It could be argued that the floating/swinging voters made,
if not a mockery of democracy they certainly encouraged the growth of a search for something that could be judged better than "first past the post".
This blog will be continued in Voting Systems Part Two. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Tuesday 18 May 2010 Sorry originally incorrectly dated as 17th
as I write, some four plus days after the General Election, I do not know which party, or combination of parties will form the new Government of the UK. However I do know that if the information from the "ears and eyes of flies on the walls" or "insights" into the minds of all the politicians and spin doctors involved could be communicated into my fingers, they should be able to type a best selling book exposing some of the shortcomings of politics in general and Party Politics in particular, in my opinion there are plenty of those.
To be fair I would surmise that several rays of unmitigated brilliance "for the good of the country"may well have penetrated the foggy curtains surrounding the horse trading rings.
I must confess though that since the election results confirmed the expectation of a Hung Parliament I have winced many times over the reference, by MPs trying to form a Government, to "working in the National Interest". Surely MPs should always be working in the National Interest, that is absolute par for the course.
Freely admitting that there are millions of people, with a much greater depth of knowledge than I in regard to UK politics, I wonder if the following observation could be clarified. Since WW Two there have been at least two occasions when the party in control had an overwhelming majority. How come they failed to retain the support of the voters who put them into such power? Could it be that the party in power, bolstered by that power, were showing signs of moving too far to the left or right? Are the "Floating/Swinging" voters who helped them into power so easily displeased or swayed by the promises in a rival party's manifesto, or did the party in power not live up to theirs? It could be argued that the floating/swinging voters made,
if not a mockery of democracy they certainly encouraged the growth of a search for something that could be judged better than "first past the post".
This blog will be continued in Voting Systems Part Two. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling. Tuesday 18 May 2010 Sorry originally incorrectly dated as 17th
Saturday 8 May 2010
Controlling World Finances. Part Four.
The word "banks" has appeared frequently, and will continue to do so, in my blogs on World Finances and National Debt. I should make it clear that I am particularly referring to the higher echelons of management in banks and financial institutions, and not to the run of the mill bank branches and their staff carrying out the essential high street business of such banks.
I do not underestimate the problems that will be met in nationalising our banks, they will be immense but they will be no where near the size of the problems that the banks created in
assuring the World Financial Armageddon [WFA]. Perhaps the points for and against nationalising banks could be given long and wide publicity, that done a referendum should be held on a simple yes or no basis. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that many of the banks cannot be relied on to effectively manage the billions of units of currency entrusted to their care. Several knowledgeably high ranking persons have stated that there is no guarantee that the WFA will not happen again and/or that it is very difficult to enact effective legislation to control banks. It rather surprises me that banks were not nationalised long ago. If nationalised banks cannot be controlled then we are indeed doomed to return to a barter system.
On a world scale the total sum of money involved in our MPs and Lords expenses furore is completely insignificant but I think many of us became rather tired of hearing words similar to " I did not break any rules". That same explanation has been given by officials handling very large amounts of money in their care. Attempts to right the obvious wrongs, were often nullified by any move to "back date" corrective legislation, the defence offered being that it would be judged "retrospective".
I will repeat a suggestion I made after a particular case where at least four men shared many millions of pounds shortly after buying a company at a give away price. I suggested that a piece of "blanket" type legislation should be enacted that read something like, "Any person who performs any financial type transaction that is seriously detrimental to the economy of the UK, or any citizen of the UK, shall be guilty of an offence etc". Legal experts can plug any holes in that simple suggestion, the aim being to give no wriggle space for people who have clearly defied the objective of that proposed legislation. Judges will establish the boundaries for "seriously detrimental" and prescribe the penalties to be imposed.
In my opinion there could hardly be a better time than this for a "Ballot Box Revolution" to formulate a more democratic way of governing countries than by divisive party politics, and a more honest, transparent and stable way of managing and controlling each countries finances.
Thank you
Frederick W Gilling. Sunday 09 May
In explaining the complexities of nationalising the banks the whole picture of National Debt should have been displayed and clarified. How much of it was owed and to whom was it owed. This information should be given for as many other countries as possible.
I do not underestimate the problems that will be met in nationalising our banks, they will be immense but they will be no where near the size of the problems that the banks created in
assuring the World Financial Armageddon [WFA]. Perhaps the points for and against nationalising banks could be given long and wide publicity, that done a referendum should be held on a simple yes or no basis. I think it has been clearly demonstrated that many of the banks cannot be relied on to effectively manage the billions of units of currency entrusted to their care. Several knowledgeably high ranking persons have stated that there is no guarantee that the WFA will not happen again and/or that it is very difficult to enact effective legislation to control banks. It rather surprises me that banks were not nationalised long ago. If nationalised banks cannot be controlled then we are indeed doomed to return to a barter system.
On a world scale the total sum of money involved in our MPs and Lords expenses furore is completely insignificant but I think many of us became rather tired of hearing words similar to " I did not break any rules". That same explanation has been given by officials handling very large amounts of money in their care. Attempts to right the obvious wrongs, were often nullified by any move to "back date" corrective legislation, the defence offered being that it would be judged "retrospective".
I will repeat a suggestion I made after a particular case where at least four men shared many millions of pounds shortly after buying a company at a give away price. I suggested that a piece of "blanket" type legislation should be enacted that read something like, "Any person who performs any financial type transaction that is seriously detrimental to the economy of the UK, or any citizen of the UK, shall be guilty of an offence etc". Legal experts can plug any holes in that simple suggestion, the aim being to give no wriggle space for people who have clearly defied the objective of that proposed legislation. Judges will establish the boundaries for "seriously detrimental" and prescribe the penalties to be imposed.
In my opinion there could hardly be a better time than this for a "Ballot Box Revolution" to formulate a more democratic way of governing countries than by divisive party politics, and a more honest, transparent and stable way of managing and controlling each countries finances.
Thank you
Frederick W Gilling. Sunday 09 May
In explaining the complexities of nationalising the banks the whole picture of National Debt should have been displayed and clarified. How much of it was owed and to whom was it owed. This information should be given for as many other countries as possible.
Thursday 6 May 2010
Controlling World Finances. Part Three.
In considering the concept of each country nationalising its banks, I feel that it is essential to remember that the World Financial Armageddon (WFA) was caused, primarily, by the senior personnel in banks and financial institutions. They were aided and abetted in creating that calamity by weak, non existent, non- enforced or disregarded regulations. Very early warnings of the dangers that led to the WFA were ignored by most of the personnel and governments concerned and they should accept some some of the blame. Some shrewd personnel may have quietly noted the danger warning, or even seen the impending danger themselves, and taken steps to heed it. One example of the dictum "if it looks too good to be true be very careful" was observed by a financial officer in a South Coast Council when he withdrew a large investment with an Icelandic bank in time to avoid the drama there and saved his council at least one million pounds.
As the problem in Greece developed it was mooted that two or three other Euro zone countries could be close to the "tipping point". A report today, 06/05/2010, from a credit rating organisation named several countries whose rating was at risk,one of them being Britain. If we had converted to the Euro we may well have been approaching problems such as Greece is experiencing. Ironically, I think, the fact that the "Square Mile" handled a large percentage of the world's finances, both normal, wildly speculative or toxic, made the UK more susceptible to the WFA that it helped to create. As the world's finances were deployed into a self- destruct mode it would be interesting to know who pushed the button or instantly sensed that it had been pushed.
I propose to labour a point which I am sure needs considering in today's context . When I left the UK in April 1952 to take up a position in a British "colony" in Central Africa I did not know one family here that owned a refrigerator and I only knew one that had a phone in their house. Some 53 years later my wife and I returned to live in the UK early in 2005. By the end of that year I could state for certainty that the thing that had impacted on me the most was the AFFLUENCE here.The number of people/families that owned or were buying houses, to many of the younger families this affluence must have been the norm. To me though, in no particular order, 53 years down the line I could see, wall to wall carpeting, central heating, wall between front room and backroom demolished to make one larger room, double glazing, refrigerators, washing machines, even washing up machines, video players, DVD players, large TV sets in main room, smaller one in bedroom, garages often with room above, conservatories, many quite large, built on brickwork extensions where space available, very expensive furniture, designer kitchens and bathrooms, up to three cars per family, many of them only two or three years old and top of the range to boot, fantastic motorcycles, boats and jet skis, modern land line phones in most houses, state of the art mobile phones, often in near constant use, electric gizmos, even toothbrushes, practically instant ready cooked meals, frequent eating out, plenty of bottles of wine at home, holidays ever further away from home, cruises on luxury liners from port A---- to Port ----Z, latest sports equipment you name it, and many other perks that I have not mentioned or do not even know about. Then multiply these "aids" to living by the number of other developed countries to arrive at the size and multiplicity of economic factors that "drive" our modern world. Let me make it clear that in no way do I begrudge these attributes to an enjoyable life, the majority of people work long and hard to acquire them for themselves and/or family. However I feel that they need to be factored in to boom or bust economics in some way that smooths out such drastic highs and lows.
Another thing that has surprised me is the throw away syndrome, probably easily justified on a local economic scale, but just looking at what can be seen in skips outside a house being renovated makes me think how most of the "throw aways" would be greatly appreciated by many families in poorer societies, this reasoning can also be applied to some fly tipping. Thank you.
This blog will be continued in Controlling World Finances. Part Four.
Frederick W Gilling. Thursday 06 May 2010
As the problem in Greece developed it was mooted that two or three other Euro zone countries could be close to the "tipping point". A report today, 06/05/2010, from a credit rating organisation named several countries whose rating was at risk,one of them being Britain. If we had converted to the Euro we may well have been approaching problems such as Greece is experiencing. Ironically, I think, the fact that the "Square Mile" handled a large percentage of the world's finances, both normal, wildly speculative or toxic, made the UK more susceptible to the WFA that it helped to create. As the world's finances were deployed into a self- destruct mode it would be interesting to know who pushed the button or instantly sensed that it had been pushed.
I propose to labour a point which I am sure needs considering in today's context . When I left the UK in April 1952 to take up a position in a British "colony" in Central Africa I did not know one family here that owned a refrigerator and I only knew one that had a phone in their house. Some 53 years later my wife and I returned to live in the UK early in 2005. By the end of that year I could state for certainty that the thing that had impacted on me the most was the AFFLUENCE here.The number of people/families that owned or were buying houses, to many of the younger families this affluence must have been the norm. To me though, in no particular order, 53 years down the line I could see, wall to wall carpeting, central heating, wall between front room and backroom demolished to make one larger room, double glazing, refrigerators, washing machines, even washing up machines, video players, DVD players, large TV sets in main room, smaller one in bedroom, garages often with room above, conservatories, many quite large, built on brickwork extensions where space available, very expensive furniture, designer kitchens and bathrooms, up to three cars per family, many of them only two or three years old and top of the range to boot, fantastic motorcycles, boats and jet skis, modern land line phones in most houses, state of the art mobile phones, often in near constant use, electric gizmos, even toothbrushes, practically instant ready cooked meals, frequent eating out, plenty of bottles of wine at home, holidays ever further away from home, cruises on luxury liners from port A---- to Port ----Z, latest sports equipment you name it, and many other perks that I have not mentioned or do not even know about. Then multiply these "aids" to living by the number of other developed countries to arrive at the size and multiplicity of economic factors that "drive" our modern world. Let me make it clear that in no way do I begrudge these attributes to an enjoyable life, the majority of people work long and hard to acquire them for themselves and/or family. However I feel that they need to be factored in to boom or bust economics in some way that smooths out such drastic highs and lows.
Another thing that has surprised me is the throw away syndrome, probably easily justified on a local economic scale, but just looking at what can be seen in skips outside a house being renovated makes me think how most of the "throw aways" would be greatly appreciated by many families in poorer societies, this reasoning can also be applied to some fly tipping. Thank you.
This blog will be continued in Controlling World Finances. Part Four.
Frederick W Gilling. Thursday 06 May 2010
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Controlling World Finances. Part Two.
A few thoughts on the assumption that all countries have nationalised their own banks, this thinking process is in no particular preconceived order apart from the first. This thought has been crystallised during the last few days as Greece has battled to negotiate an aid package to help them handle massive debts. Leaving aside the very important question as to how that debt burden was allowed to get out of hand, the pressing need is to stabilise the situation as quickly as possible. Every normal person in the world must feel a deep sense of compassion for the relatives and friends of the three people who died in a blazing bank. The thought that was crystallising in my mind was the critically important one in regard to nationalised banks, that thought being how an internationally recognised method of evaluating the exchange rates of different countries can be agreed on. Perhaps normal market forces will prevail but any attempt to make the forces abnormal should be treated with zero tolerance and severely punished. This problem however is intensified when a group of countries use a common currency.
Greece uses the Euro and that is creating unique problems that need immediate solutions. I hope that the EU itself comes out of this crisis intact. The thought springs to mind that noble attempts to improve the World, or segments of it, will meet problems, of varying degrees of severity, along the way. In my opinion there must be room for flexibility and determination, in overcoming such unforeseen problems, to enable the original concept to survive. In previous blogs I commented on the EU, I also suggested that governments should be free from party politics, and now the nationalisation of banks. These three concepts, the EU, Party Free Politics and the Nationalisation of Banks are, in my opinion, all noble ideals and should be pursued with a determination to iron out any problems met along the way. One of the largest problems, I am sure, will be to arouse the often dormant conscience in people's minds.
Several times I have suggested that the World Financial Armageddon would (SHOULD!) create a Watershed Moment in how the world is run, Party Free Politics and the Nationalisation of Banks would justify the use of the words, Watershed Moment. Thank you.
This blog will be continued in Controlling World Finances. Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling. Thursday 06 May 2010.
Greece uses the Euro and that is creating unique problems that need immediate solutions. I hope that the EU itself comes out of this crisis intact. The thought springs to mind that noble attempts to improve the World, or segments of it, will meet problems, of varying degrees of severity, along the way. In my opinion there must be room for flexibility and determination, in overcoming such unforeseen problems, to enable the original concept to survive. In previous blogs I commented on the EU, I also suggested that governments should be free from party politics, and now the nationalisation of banks. These three concepts, the EU, Party Free Politics and the Nationalisation of Banks are, in my opinion, all noble ideals and should be pursued with a determination to iron out any problems met along the way. One of the largest problems, I am sure, will be to arouse the often dormant conscience in people's minds.
Several times I have suggested that the World Financial Armageddon would (SHOULD!) create a Watershed Moment in how the world is run, Party Free Politics and the Nationalisation of Banks would justify the use of the words, Watershed Moment. Thank you.
This blog will be continued in Controlling World Finances. Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling. Thursday 06 May 2010.
Tuesday 4 May 2010
Controlling World Finances Part One.
I cannot deny that there are millions of people in the world more qualified than me to attempt an article with such a title, I can barely lay claim to QBE [Qualified By Experience], and even that was of the "absorbing very hard financial knocks" variety, so into the deep end I jump.
As a start I will call on the help of three Presidents. I understand that circa 200 years ago President Thomas Jefferson used words similar in meaning to "I consider that bankers pose more of a threat to liberty than standing armies". At Davos, in January 2010 President Nicolas Sarkozy is quoted as saying "Pay and bonuses for many bankers bore no relationship to merit and were morally indefensible". And continued, "In the future there will be much greater demand for income to better reflect social utility and merit". A few days ago President Barack Obama, in New York, was quoted as saying "A free market was never meant to be a free licence to take whatever you can get, however you can get it."
For some time now the British Government, among others, has been pressing for Internationally agreed action in regard to curbing "casino gambling" type investments in all manner of conjured up financial instruments linked to, you name it, price movements up or down before or after a certain date. Superimposing the question of insurance over the transactions adds to the difficulty of anyone, with less functioning grey matter cells than Professor Albert Einstien was gifted with, attempting to understand exactly who will benefit. Another move that is being discussed is imposing a tax on certain types of transactions. In the background of cynical or practical minds, the immediate "thinks" is that any such tax will be carefully slotted into the small print of the deals that an investor is offered to ensure that the bank, on the face of it, might be handing the required percentage over to Government, but in reality that money came from the investor.
A salient point, often made, in regard to attempts to control or attempt to levy some form of tax on "The Banks" is that it has to be the same in all of the major economies. Part of the reasoning being to curtail the movement of the top flight [pun there] specialist personnel from one country to another. These are much the same reasons as companies often give to justify huge payout packages for some of their gifted experts. A few months ago a leading financial institution announced large bonuses for no less than five thousand of its UK based staff. That number of recipients suggests to me that they are not a particularly rare species. Perhaps it was something similar to that that triggered President Sarkozy's remarks at Davos.
In my previous blog to this I suggested that all countries, after agreeing on the broad principles involved, should nationalise their banks. That of course is surely the ultimate form of control.
I would like to see a gathering of internationally acclaimed financial and economic wizards tasked with the job of raising and debating the pros and cons of such nationalisation. Perhaps a separate gathering of humanitarians and psychologists could discuss the possible impact and acceptance of such nationalisation. Mr Devi Lishimp prompts me to insert a little plug here, a large number of people decry what they see as the "nanny state" approach to governing a country. I would surmise that many of those, who support that derisory description, were very pleased when Government stepped in and acted as a true "nanny" as they took over Northern Rock and then went on to save other major banks from being wiped out. Our population, as well as that of most of the World, should never lose sight of the World Financial Armageddon that the Banks and Financial Institutions wrought. In my opinion that alone is more than enough justification for the nationalisation of banks before the whole disastrous mess is recreated.
This blog will be continued in Controlling World Finances Part Two. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 05 May 2010
As a start I will call on the help of three Presidents. I understand that circa 200 years ago President Thomas Jefferson used words similar in meaning to "I consider that bankers pose more of a threat to liberty than standing armies". At Davos, in January 2010 President Nicolas Sarkozy is quoted as saying "Pay and bonuses for many bankers bore no relationship to merit and were morally indefensible". And continued, "In the future there will be much greater demand for income to better reflect social utility and merit". A few days ago President Barack Obama, in New York, was quoted as saying "A free market was never meant to be a free licence to take whatever you can get, however you can get it."
For some time now the British Government, among others, has been pressing for Internationally agreed action in regard to curbing "casino gambling" type investments in all manner of conjured up financial instruments linked to, you name it, price movements up or down before or after a certain date. Superimposing the question of insurance over the transactions adds to the difficulty of anyone, with less functioning grey matter cells than Professor Albert Einstien was gifted with, attempting to understand exactly who will benefit. Another move that is being discussed is imposing a tax on certain types of transactions. In the background of cynical or practical minds, the immediate "thinks" is that any such tax will be carefully slotted into the small print of the deals that an investor is offered to ensure that the bank, on the face of it, might be handing the required percentage over to Government, but in reality that money came from the investor.
A salient point, often made, in regard to attempts to control or attempt to levy some form of tax on "The Banks" is that it has to be the same in all of the major economies. Part of the reasoning being to curtail the movement of the top flight [pun there] specialist personnel from one country to another. These are much the same reasons as companies often give to justify huge payout packages for some of their gifted experts. A few months ago a leading financial institution announced large bonuses for no less than five thousand of its UK based staff. That number of recipients suggests to me that they are not a particularly rare species. Perhaps it was something similar to that that triggered President Sarkozy's remarks at Davos.
In my previous blog to this I suggested that all countries, after agreeing on the broad principles involved, should nationalise their banks. That of course is surely the ultimate form of control.
I would like to see a gathering of internationally acclaimed financial and economic wizards tasked with the job of raising and debating the pros and cons of such nationalisation. Perhaps a separate gathering of humanitarians and psychologists could discuss the possible impact and acceptance of such nationalisation. Mr Devi Lishimp prompts me to insert a little plug here, a large number of people decry what they see as the "nanny state" approach to governing a country. I would surmise that many of those, who support that derisory description, were very pleased when Government stepped in and acted as a true "nanny" as they took over Northern Rock and then went on to save other major banks from being wiped out. Our population, as well as that of most of the World, should never lose sight of the World Financial Armageddon that the Banks and Financial Institutions wrought. In my opinion that alone is more than enough justification for the nationalisation of banks before the whole disastrous mess is recreated.
This blog will be continued in Controlling World Finances Part Two. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 05 May 2010
Monday 3 May 2010
UK National Debt. Part Four.
I seem to have drifted away from UK National Debt into World Finance but, of course, there is a close relationship between the two subjects. For several months I have been wondering about,
"Where Does The Money Come From"? The "money" being [1] the Billions distributed in cash or stock to thousands of employees of financial institutions, as well as the CEOs etc of public companies, in the form of bonuses. [2] The Millions accrued by top flight sports stars, in salaries, prize money and endorsements. [3] The Millions, often multi, earned by entrepreneurs, presenters, performers and artistes in the broad spectrum of entertainment, one example, covered by "broad" being Formula One Racing. [4] I will include Authors as a group, a few of them are multi million earners but, I think, it is fairly easy to see where most of their "money" comes from.
In many cases one can accurately surmise that the "money" comes straight out of the pockets, often very willingly even eagerly, of the population. Conversely it is not easy to see where the Billions of units of"money", made by elements of the financial institutions, come from. Can one argue that gains, by individuals or organisations must imply that other individuals or organisations have suffered exactly matching losses? If the question Where does the money come from? is answered I can then pose the question "Where does the "money" go"? I note that one answer to that is that some of it is given away. Page 8 of The Sunday Times RICH LIST 2010 is headed "Philanthropy hits a high note". On page 9 "The Sunday Times Giving List" gives details of donations to various charities by some of the UK's wealthiest people. A truly mind blowing amount of 531.2 million pounds topped the list and that was given away by one man. The close "runners up" amounts, in millions were; 470, 294.2, 275.6 and 103.4, when I read these amounts out to my wife I felt quite choked emotionally. I think it can be assumed that a very high percentage of that money will find its way fairly quickly into the down to earth economy, this to the benefit of the general population.
This highly commendable philanthropic route will not be followed by the trillions of units of hard currency owned by individuals or controlled by organisations whose aim is to use it to generate even more billions. This headlong pursuit of the quick billion or so resulted in the World Financial Armageddon, it is not surprising that world leaders are now, at least talking about taxing bank profits as a result of the cookie crumbling in such a strange way, that being Governments having to step in to prevent the collapse of financial institutions that are "Too Big To Be Allowed To Fail". What a dream scenario for those such institutions. If they take a high risk and lose the taxpayer will bail them out, but if they win that will justify massive bonus handouts to their top personnel.
In all seriousness I think the ultimate solution is that, in a concerted action, all of the countries in the world should nationalise their banks. It just has to be possible, for an internationally accepted modus operandi to be legalised, that will enable every country to take control of all banking activities in their country.
This idea will be pursued in my next pipe dream blog, "Controlling World Finance"
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 04 May 2010
"Where Does The Money Come From"? The "money" being [1] the Billions distributed in cash or stock to thousands of employees of financial institutions, as well as the CEOs etc of public companies, in the form of bonuses. [2] The Millions accrued by top flight sports stars, in salaries, prize money and endorsements. [3] The Millions, often multi, earned by entrepreneurs, presenters, performers and artistes in the broad spectrum of entertainment, one example, covered by "broad" being Formula One Racing. [4] I will include Authors as a group, a few of them are multi million earners but, I think, it is fairly easy to see where most of their "money" comes from.
In many cases one can accurately surmise that the "money" comes straight out of the pockets, often very willingly even eagerly, of the population. Conversely it is not easy to see where the Billions of units of"money", made by elements of the financial institutions, come from. Can one argue that gains, by individuals or organisations must imply that other individuals or organisations have suffered exactly matching losses? If the question Where does the money come from? is answered I can then pose the question "Where does the "money" go"? I note that one answer to that is that some of it is given away. Page 8 of The Sunday Times RICH LIST 2010 is headed "Philanthropy hits a high note". On page 9 "The Sunday Times Giving List" gives details of donations to various charities by some of the UK's wealthiest people. A truly mind blowing amount of 531.2 million pounds topped the list and that was given away by one man. The close "runners up" amounts, in millions were; 470, 294.2, 275.6 and 103.4, when I read these amounts out to my wife I felt quite choked emotionally. I think it can be assumed that a very high percentage of that money will find its way fairly quickly into the down to earth economy, this to the benefit of the general population.
This highly commendable philanthropic route will not be followed by the trillions of units of hard currency owned by individuals or controlled by organisations whose aim is to use it to generate even more billions. This headlong pursuit of the quick billion or so resulted in the World Financial Armageddon, it is not surprising that world leaders are now, at least talking about taxing bank profits as a result of the cookie crumbling in such a strange way, that being Governments having to step in to prevent the collapse of financial institutions that are "Too Big To Be Allowed To Fail". What a dream scenario for those such institutions. If they take a high risk and lose the taxpayer will bail them out, but if they win that will justify massive bonus handouts to their top personnel.
In all seriousness I think the ultimate solution is that, in a concerted action, all of the countries in the world should nationalise their banks. It just has to be possible, for an internationally accepted modus operandi to be legalised, that will enable every country to take control of all banking activities in their country.
This idea will be pursued in my next pipe dream blog, "Controlling World Finance"
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 04 May 2010
Sunday 2 May 2010
UK National Debt Part Three.
In respect of the World Financial Armageddon [WFA] it would appear that measures to deal with many of the problems are now getting the International attention they merit, in my opinion this should have started within days of the very magnitude of the problem becoming crystal clear. Every day's delay meant a day more for some of the top men to start damage avoiding or limiting actions such as hiding what could well be toxic debts.
A year or two before the WFA I self-published a small book covering many widely divergent subjects, one two page chapter was headed "FRAUDULENT OR RECKLESS BUSINESS BEHAVIOUR BY COMPANY DIRECTORS". This heading and the contents of that chapter were prompted by several huge international companies suffering massive losses or even totally collapsing in circumstances best described as highly suspicious. One very large "savings club", here in the UK, had to inform its subscribers that they would only get a very small percentage back of what they expected at Christmas.
Quoted directly from my book: "How about a law that at the first suspicion of anything worrying or fraudulent, likely to affect the finances of any company or business in a major way, the Directors, Accountants, Managers and any one who may be responsible in any way are arrested and held in such circumstances that they cannot converse with each other or with any one who has an interest in the case.
They will then be questioned about the circumstances leading to their arrest and, if thought desirable, the Directors could hold a supervised and recorded board meeting to discuss the crisis.
From that point the police will decide what further action, if any, is necessary." Quotation ends.
On page 7 of the Sunday Times dated 25.04. 2010 there is an article by Iian Dey and Dominic Rushe. The article is headed Wall Street fears Goldman backlash. In my opinion this article is well worth reading by any one interested in understanding some of the different aspects involved in world finance at the top level. In a similar understanding concept www.Economicshelp.org yields information on National Debt.
This blog will be continued in UK National Debt Part Four.
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 02 May 2010
A year or two before the WFA I self-published a small book covering many widely divergent subjects, one two page chapter was headed "FRAUDULENT OR RECKLESS BUSINESS BEHAVIOUR BY COMPANY DIRECTORS". This heading and the contents of that chapter were prompted by several huge international companies suffering massive losses or even totally collapsing in circumstances best described as highly suspicious. One very large "savings club", here in the UK, had to inform its subscribers that they would only get a very small percentage back of what they expected at Christmas.
Quoted directly from my book: "How about a law that at the first suspicion of anything worrying or fraudulent, likely to affect the finances of any company or business in a major way, the Directors, Accountants, Managers and any one who may be responsible in any way are arrested and held in such circumstances that they cannot converse with each other or with any one who has an interest in the case.
They will then be questioned about the circumstances leading to their arrest and, if thought desirable, the Directors could hold a supervised and recorded board meeting to discuss the crisis.
From that point the police will decide what further action, if any, is necessary." Quotation ends.
On page 7 of the Sunday Times dated 25.04. 2010 there is an article by Iian Dey and Dominic Rushe. The article is headed Wall Street fears Goldman backlash. In my opinion this article is well worth reading by any one interested in understanding some of the different aspects involved in world finance at the top level. In a similar understanding concept www.Economicshelp.org yields information on National Debt.
This blog will be continued in UK National Debt Part Four.
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 02 May 2010
Saturday 1 May 2010
UK National Debt Part Two.
In Part One I raised the subject of National Debt and suggested that a World Financial Transparency Era would not be amiss. As the financial explosion/implosion happened in 2007 with the instantaneousness that those words so dramatically describe, I came to think that the glib spin words "credit crunch" and "economic slowdown" should be replaced with the truly descriptive "World Financial Armageddon".
As the true magnitude of the economic devastation being created became apparent, in the after shocks, I wrote to an acquaintance and commented that we had both served in the largest world war ever and we were now in a recession that was likely to be the largest the world has seen. The National Debt that is now being carried by many major economies only reinforces a long held belief that the last couple of years may well come to be regarded as a watershed moment in how the world is run. I have a fervent hope that these changes, if they occur will be for the common good, and that the rioting being depicted on the streets in Greece, as I type this, is not a trailer for the immediate future.
Transparency in world finance may help to stop my mind from boggling at the scope for Creative Accounting, balance sheet fudging and outright theft that must have been spawned by the bailing out of banks by some of the world's governments. There must have been plenty of scope as "toxic" assets were not declared or were added to before being sold off. Our tax payers now own at least one bank outright and have substantial amounts of stock in others. Are any of our banks and other financial institutions borrowing money at 0.5 % and has some of that money been used to buy bonds that earn higher rates of interest as they swell the National Debt?. Some of the money must have been used to support debit and credit cards that earn very high rates of interest. As well as resuming large bonus payouts to their top wizards some of these institutions may be able to get themselves out of hock and start the next money making - for them - boom,
boom, boom,Bomb.
This blog on finances will continue in Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 02 May 2010
As the true magnitude of the economic devastation being created became apparent, in the after shocks, I wrote to an acquaintance and commented that we had both served in the largest world war ever and we were now in a recession that was likely to be the largest the world has seen. The National Debt that is now being carried by many major economies only reinforces a long held belief that the last couple of years may well come to be regarded as a watershed moment in how the world is run. I have a fervent hope that these changes, if they occur will be for the common good, and that the rioting being depicted on the streets in Greece, as I type this, is not a trailer for the immediate future.
Transparency in world finance may help to stop my mind from boggling at the scope for Creative Accounting, balance sheet fudging and outright theft that must have been spawned by the bailing out of banks by some of the world's governments. There must have been plenty of scope as "toxic" assets were not declared or were added to before being sold off. Our tax payers now own at least one bank outright and have substantial amounts of stock in others. Are any of our banks and other financial institutions borrowing money at 0.5 % and has some of that money been used to buy bonds that earn higher rates of interest as they swell the National Debt?. Some of the money must have been used to support debit and credit cards that earn very high rates of interest. As well as resuming large bonus payouts to their top wizards some of these institutions may be able to get themselves out of hock and start the next money making - for them - boom,
boom, boom,Bomb.
This blog on finances will continue in Part Three.
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 02 May 2010
UK National Debt. Part One
UK National Debt
Need for World Financial Transparency Day
Ab0ut a week ago , courtesy of a TV programme, I saw that our National Debt stood at £777 Billion and that the interest on it was more than our Defence Budget.
From on line reference sources, in February 2010 at £848.5 Billion it was 59.9% of our GDP. Information was presented that showed there were other large economies with worse figures than ours. However it then went on to explain that as some data was not included in our figures comparisons had to treated with caution.
It would be very interesting to be given accurate information as to whom our debt was owed, the interest rate, or rates used and how much interest was paid to the people/organisations etc who had loaned us the money. It would be even more interesting if similar data was available from all of the large economies. How about a World Financial Transparency Day? Better still Era.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 01 May 2010
Need for World Financial Transparency Day
Ab0ut a week ago , courtesy of a TV programme, I saw that our National Debt stood at £777 Billion and that the interest on it was more than our Defence Budget.
From on line reference sources, in February 2010 at £848.5 Billion it was 59.9% of our GDP. Information was presented that showed there were other large economies with worse figures than ours. However it then went on to explain that as some data was not included in our figures comparisons had to treated with caution.
It would be very interesting to be given accurate information as to whom our debt was owed, the interest rate, or rates used and how much interest was paid to the people/organisations etc who had loaned us the money. It would be even more interesting if similar data was available from all of the large economies. How about a World Financial Transparency Day? Better still Era.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 01 May 2010
Thursday 22 April 2010
Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments. Part Three
MPs are assembled in the House of Commons to form a Government. The Speaker calls for nominations for the position of Prime Minister. Each nomination must have a proposer and, say, ten"seconders". If only one nomination is received then that person is deemed to have been elected unanimously. If there are only two nominations then the person who receives the most votes is the winner. At this point I suggest that if three or more nominations are received a different method to the simple "first past the post" may have been preferred, and legislated for, if that was the case then it would be applied. ( NB I think that long and careful deliberation would be needed, to evolve a fair method of arriving at a winner, when three or more nominations for a position are received).
When the Prime Minister has been elected The Speaker calls for nominations for the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer and the same method is used. The process is repeated for other positions of Minister and when that phase is completed Deputies for all Ministers are elected.
Safe in the knowledge that she or he, and the Government, enjoys the confidence of the the House of Commons the Prime Minister can seek an audience with the Queen to complete the established ritual.
This method of selecting a government could apply to to a Commons full of independent MPs or for a hung Parliament. There is nothing to stop it being used in the situation where a party holds an overall majority, in fact I feel that it should be written into a Constitution as being the way that has to be used to select a new government. The Prime Minister of the previous Government acts in a caretaker basis until a Prime Minister is elected. In the case of a party holding a majority the method I have suggested may ascertain several things, it would cement the authority of the persons elected as well as establishing the popularity of members of the "opposition" who were nominated for a position. Even though they knew that they would not win that position they could carry the title, with honour, of, for example, Leader of the Opposition or Shadow Chancellor etc. It is possible that the method could be cleverly exploited by members who wished to chip away at a supposed difference of opinion among the majority party members as to who should fill a particular office.
My next blogs will continue upholding my contention that for true democracy Party Politics should be consigned to the dustbin of history. In addition I will indulge in another flight of fantasy and suggest a few ideas in relation to a written constitution for the UK, thank you
Frederick W Gilling Friday 23 April 2010
When the Prime Minister has been elected The Speaker calls for nominations for the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer and the same method is used. The process is repeated for other positions of Minister and when that phase is completed Deputies for all Ministers are elected.
Safe in the knowledge that she or he, and the Government, enjoys the confidence of the the House of Commons the Prime Minister can seek an audience with the Queen to complete the established ritual.
This method of selecting a government could apply to to a Commons full of independent MPs or for a hung Parliament. There is nothing to stop it being used in the situation where a party holds an overall majority, in fact I feel that it should be written into a Constitution as being the way that has to be used to select a new government. The Prime Minister of the previous Government acts in a caretaker basis until a Prime Minister is elected. In the case of a party holding a majority the method I have suggested may ascertain several things, it would cement the authority of the persons elected as well as establishing the popularity of members of the "opposition" who were nominated for a position. Even though they knew that they would not win that position they could carry the title, with honour, of, for example, Leader of the Opposition or Shadow Chancellor etc. It is possible that the method could be cleverly exploited by members who wished to chip away at a supposed difference of opinion among the majority party members as to who should fill a particular office.
My next blogs will continue upholding my contention that for true democracy Party Politics should be consigned to the dustbin of history. In addition I will indulge in another flight of fantasy and suggest a few ideas in relation to a written constitution for the UK, thank you
Frederick W Gilling Friday 23 April 2010
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments. Part Two
For three years or so I have, via several channels, been advocating Party Free Politics, as my ideal scenario would yield a Parliament full of independent MPs I came up with the following suggested method of establishing an acceptable government. As I mulled it over the thought surfaced that, not only could the method be also used in the case of a hung Parliament it HAS MUCH TO RECOMMEND ITS USE WHENEVER A NEW GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE FORMED.
As was to be expected the word PARTY figures in the discussions and literature as to how a particular person can be deemed to be worthy of the title Prime Minister. That infers, with justification, that party politics are dominant and that the leader of the party that holds the most seats is in pole position, however in a hung Parliament that does not guarantee the race will be won. To guarantee that the leader of a party will become the Prime Minister a party must hold more than fifty percent of the seats, in which case, of course, Parliament is not "hung".
"PARTIES" have become so woven into the very fabric of politics in the UK, and many other democracies, that the word PARTY is used on the assumption, justified at the moment, that they will exist. As a start to rectifying the use of the word Party in legislation, or in "case law" situations, I suggest that the initials MPs could, also with justification, be used in place of the word PARTY.
So, without further ado, let us assume that following an election MPs are gathered in the House of Commons, duly sworn in and under the control of The Speaker. Their first duty, under my proposed new legislation, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PARLIAMENT IS "HUNG" OR NOT, is to elect a Prime Minister, then other Ministers that are deemed necessary as well as the associated Deputies. This, as far as I am aware, is a drastic departure from the established procedure where the person designated as Prime Minister chooses the Chancellor and Ministers from his own party, the pros and cons for my suggested way of establishing a GOVERNMENT will be advanced below.
All MPs should be familiar with the gist of the following sentence that I quote from the material mentioned above [In Part One]. "A crucial aspect of the British system of government is that the government of the day must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons". The procedure outlined in my next blog WILL ENSURE THAT ASPECT IS MET and will be totally transparent. (Though in some cases it may well be the result of previous non- transparent negotiations.)
My next blog will be Part Three of Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments,
thank you
Frederick W Gilling Thursday 22 April 2010
As was to be expected the word PARTY figures in the discussions and literature as to how a particular person can be deemed to be worthy of the title Prime Minister. That infers, with justification, that party politics are dominant and that the leader of the party that holds the most seats is in pole position, however in a hung Parliament that does not guarantee the race will be won. To guarantee that the leader of a party will become the Prime Minister a party must hold more than fifty percent of the seats, in which case, of course, Parliament is not "hung".
"PARTIES" have become so woven into the very fabric of politics in the UK, and many other democracies, that the word PARTY is used on the assumption, justified at the moment, that they will exist. As a start to rectifying the use of the word Party in legislation, or in "case law" situations, I suggest that the initials MPs could, also with justification, be used in place of the word PARTY.
So, without further ado, let us assume that following an election MPs are gathered in the House of Commons, duly sworn in and under the control of The Speaker. Their first duty, under my proposed new legislation, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PARLIAMENT IS "HUNG" OR NOT, is to elect a Prime Minister, then other Ministers that are deemed necessary as well as the associated Deputies. This, as far as I am aware, is a drastic departure from the established procedure where the person designated as Prime Minister chooses the Chancellor and Ministers from his own party, the pros and cons for my suggested way of establishing a GOVERNMENT will be advanced below.
All MPs should be familiar with the gist of the following sentence that I quote from the material mentioned above [In Part One]. "A crucial aspect of the British system of government is that the government of the day must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons". The procedure outlined in my next blog WILL ENSURE THAT ASPECT IS MET and will be totally transparent. (Though in some cases it may well be the result of previous non- transparent negotiations.)
My next blog will be Part Three of Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments,
thank you
Frederick W Gilling Thursday 22 April 2010
Tuesday 20 April 2010
Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments. Part One
The possibility of a "Hung Parliament" resulting from the general election in the UK on the sixth of May seems to have increased greatly. The website for Parliament can be searched for information in regard to hung parliaments. Standard note SN/PC/04951 under Library House of Commons, written by Lucinda Maer yields examples from 1900 to date. The Cabinet Office has published a Draft Chapter of the Cabinet Manual that covers aspects related to the formation of Government, this includes that of a Hung Parliament.
After about two hours of searching through and reading different solutions to the problem of Hung Parliaments I came to the firm conclusion that all that I had read provided pretty conclusive proof that we need to at least make a start on a written constitution. At the moment we seem to be relying on, in effect, "case law". To the best of my knowledge very little is chiselled in stone and quite a lot is cobbled [pun there] up to suit the situation at the time.
One method of dealing with the problem is for the leader of the party with the largest number of seats to form a "Minority Government". A great deal of discussion probably takes place, behind different closed doors, prior to the gathering in the House that ends with one MP having sufficient backing to meet the Queen and gain her approval to form a government. Such a minority government may last a long time due to various reasons, one being by avoiding matters that are likely to cut across any major beliefs of a majority of the opposition. Another is that many of the MPs, or a particular party, do not want to trigger another election until they consider their chances of being elected again are maximised.
Another way of overcoming a hung parliament is to form a coalition government. One could argue that as that coalition could represent a majority of voters it satisfies an underlying principle of democracy. As an over simplified example, if party A wins 40% of the seats and parties B and C 30% each then a coalition of B and C means that 20% more of the voters are represented in government, it could even ensure that the coalition government runs a full term.
My next blog will be Part Two of Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments, thank you
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 21 April 2010
After about two hours of searching through and reading different solutions to the problem of Hung Parliaments I came to the firm conclusion that all that I had read provided pretty conclusive proof that we need to at least make a start on a written constitution. At the moment we seem to be relying on, in effect, "case law". To the best of my knowledge very little is chiselled in stone and quite a lot is cobbled [pun there] up to suit the situation at the time.
One method of dealing with the problem is for the leader of the party with the largest number of seats to form a "Minority Government". A great deal of discussion probably takes place, behind different closed doors, prior to the gathering in the House that ends with one MP having sufficient backing to meet the Queen and gain her approval to form a government. Such a minority government may last a long time due to various reasons, one being by avoiding matters that are likely to cut across any major beliefs of a majority of the opposition. Another is that many of the MPs, or a particular party, do not want to trigger another election until they consider their chances of being elected again are maximised.
Another way of overcoming a hung parliament is to form a coalition government. One could argue that as that coalition could represent a majority of voters it satisfies an underlying principle of democracy. As an over simplified example, if party A wins 40% of the seats and parties B and C 30% each then a coalition of B and C means that 20% more of the voters are represented in government, it could even ensure that the coalition government runs a full term.
My next blog will be Part Two of Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments, thank you
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 21 April 2010
Monday 8 March 2010
PCC Governance Review Part Three
In this blog I will make brief comments in regard to the initial general impact generated by the "Submissions Received" published on line by the Governance Review Panel. What were the different reasons that prompted submissions being sent to the Panel?. The need to show why one had an axe to grind? That was my initial reason; a vested interest to be promoted by either attempting to broadly maintain the status quo, or to initiate drastic changes in the way the press is regulated? A public spirited desire to get, what the writer or organisation thought, was the best deal for the general public? Or a combination of the reasons mentioned?
Some of the individuals and organisations that presented submissions had, to my way of thinking, awe inspiring credentials in respect of the publishing industry, an example being information that the National Union of Journalists was founded in 1907.
The following examples underscore my just born contention that the Governance Panel will need to display the wisdom of Solomon, in coming up with sound suggestions aimed at improving the standing of the PCC in the eyes of many of its critics, the need for such a power of judgement is clearly shown in my appraisal of the arguments advanced by two lawyers steeped in aspects of the law related to the publishing industry. One lawyer, in 20 pages, took the PCC apart at the seams, the other lawyer appeared to be, in general, more than happy to maintain the present system. If I may be permitted I will make a robust comment and that is "One of these lawyers is on this planet, the other is in cloud cuckoo land some where, but which one?.
The Governance Review Panel have a mammoth task to tackle, their report is expected in late spring. I feel that many people who are interested in the whole concept of press regulation must believe, as I do, that it is now or never time to come up with a system, that meets as many points as possible, in ensuring that any lessons endured in the last twenty years have been noted, and dealt with, without the need for new government imposed legislation. One such point could well be "a right of reply" and, secondly, a hobby horse of mine, "space reserved on page three for complaints against the paper" In several instances I have made it clear that I feel the press should go out of their way, to hold the moral high ground, in regard to influencing the public as to what is and what is not acceptable in relation to taste, decency and offensiveness. In that same mould I note, with something akin to absolute disgust and horror at the vulgarity, and worse, of comments unleashed on line. That, in my opinion, free speech or not, freedom of expression or not, will need drastic legislation to control it, the key words in that regard surely must be absolute zero tolerance.
Frederick W Gilling 22:30 hrs Monday 08 March 2010
Some of the individuals and organisations that presented submissions had, to my way of thinking, awe inspiring credentials in respect of the publishing industry, an example being information that the National Union of Journalists was founded in 1907.
The following examples underscore my just born contention that the Governance Panel will need to display the wisdom of Solomon, in coming up with sound suggestions aimed at improving the standing of the PCC in the eyes of many of its critics, the need for such a power of judgement is clearly shown in my appraisal of the arguments advanced by two lawyers steeped in aspects of the law related to the publishing industry. One lawyer, in 20 pages, took the PCC apart at the seams, the other lawyer appeared to be, in general, more than happy to maintain the present system. If I may be permitted I will make a robust comment and that is "One of these lawyers is on this planet, the other is in cloud cuckoo land some where, but which one?.
The Governance Review Panel have a mammoth task to tackle, their report is expected in late spring. I feel that many people who are interested in the whole concept of press regulation must believe, as I do, that it is now or never time to come up with a system, that meets as many points as possible, in ensuring that any lessons endured in the last twenty years have been noted, and dealt with, without the need for new government imposed legislation. One such point could well be "a right of reply" and, secondly, a hobby horse of mine, "space reserved on page three for complaints against the paper" In several instances I have made it clear that I feel the press should go out of their way, to hold the moral high ground, in regard to influencing the public as to what is and what is not acceptable in relation to taste, decency and offensiveness. In that same mould I note, with something akin to absolute disgust and horror at the vulgarity, and worse, of comments unleashed on line. That, in my opinion, free speech or not, freedom of expression or not, will need drastic legislation to control it, the key words in that regard surely must be absolute zero tolerance.
Frederick W Gilling 22:30 hrs Monday 08 March 2010
PCC Governance Review Part Two
My developing thought process, on the Governance Review, was not a conscious action but it MUST have occurred, I will try to explain this not planned shift in the driving force behind, and following on to, my submissions to both the Governance Panel and the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee.
The initial impetus has not changed, that being a deep feeling of injustice over a decision by the PCC in regard to a complaint I made to them. I had an axe to grind and I ground it very hard, I still have the hope that something approaching justice will result to counter balance the amount of time that I have expended in seeking justice. The shift in my thinking has been, I think, on account of my becoming aware of the of the much broader issues in respect of regulating the, potentially unbridled power of the press, with the need for press freedom. This new found appreciation of the complexity of the problems involved in attempting to find a solution to the, over simplified, POWER v FREEDOM conundrum has resulted in my newly found un- blinkered awareness, of the vitally important issues involved in attempting to regulate the press.
The submissions received by the Governance Panel are listed in two distinct groups, the first group I assume were, in the main, submitted by individuals or interested parties by post. The second group comes under the heading "on line petition".
There were 18 submissions in the first group and 23 in the second. I set about reading them all, this was, it transpired, no small task in regard to the first group, but far, far easier with the second, the reasons for this being: in the first group some of the submissions were very long and meticulously detailed, one running to about 48 pages of quite small print, my speed reading will have to be backed up with several hours more time, but at least I was able to make a few small comments in respect of each. In the second group 21 of the 23 were broadly the same but never the less some of those did add interesting comments. Many of these particular submissions were only one page in length.
I must confess that I expected to see many more submissions than those presented, there may of course be many more submissions the writers of which did not wish them to be published, one reason for this could have been that the writers were only too aware of the power of the press.The "spin" specialists could have a field day in explaining my perceived shortage of submissions; it shows that most people are happy with the way the PCC is independently self-regulating the press! People did not send in submissions because they knew it would not make a difference, take your pick. I do note however that some very large guns did open fire.
My next blog "PCC Governance Review Part Three" will express some of my views based on the general tenor of the submissions I have seen.
Frederick W Gilling 15:34 hrs Monday 08 March 2010
The initial impetus has not changed, that being a deep feeling of injustice over a decision by the PCC in regard to a complaint I made to them. I had an axe to grind and I ground it very hard, I still have the hope that something approaching justice will result to counter balance the amount of time that I have expended in seeking justice. The shift in my thinking has been, I think, on account of my becoming aware of the of the much broader issues in respect of regulating the, potentially unbridled power of the press, with the need for press freedom. This new found appreciation of the complexity of the problems involved in attempting to find a solution to the, over simplified, POWER v FREEDOM conundrum has resulted in my newly found un- blinkered awareness, of the vitally important issues involved in attempting to regulate the press.
The submissions received by the Governance Panel are listed in two distinct groups, the first group I assume were, in the main, submitted by individuals or interested parties by post. The second group comes under the heading "on line petition".
There were 18 submissions in the first group and 23 in the second. I set about reading them all, this was, it transpired, no small task in regard to the first group, but far, far easier with the second, the reasons for this being: in the first group some of the submissions were very long and meticulously detailed, one running to about 48 pages of quite small print, my speed reading will have to be backed up with several hours more time, but at least I was able to make a few small comments in respect of each. In the second group 21 of the 23 were broadly the same but never the less some of those did add interesting comments. Many of these particular submissions were only one page in length.
I must confess that I expected to see many more submissions than those presented, there may of course be many more submissions the writers of which did not wish them to be published, one reason for this could have been that the writers were only too aware of the power of the press.The "spin" specialists could have a field day in explaining my perceived shortage of submissions; it shows that most people are happy with the way the PCC is independently self-regulating the press! People did not send in submissions because they knew it would not make a difference, take your pick. I do note however that some very large guns did open fire.
My next blog "PCC Governance Review Part Three" will express some of my views based on the general tenor of the submissions I have seen.
Frederick W Gilling 15:34 hrs Monday 08 March 2010
Sunday 7 March 2010
Update on Governance Review of Press Complaints Commission
Re-capping on the title to this blog. The Chairman of the PCC, Baroness Buscombe, instigated an independent review of the governance of the PCC and a panel was formed, under the Chairmanship of Ms Vivian Hepworth, to conduct this review. Submissions were invited for consideration by the panel, the deadline for submissions being the 25th January 2010.
More or less within the same time frame, but otherwise not connected, "The Editors' Code Committee" were holding the annual review of the Code which lays down guide lines to be followed by the Publishing Industry in general. Suggestions in regard, specifically, to this Code were invited, the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee is Mr Ian Beales.
I submitted my suggestions to the Governance Review Panel and to the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee. On Friday 05 March 2010 the Governance Review published, on line, the submissions they had received from individuals/organisations who were not averse to their names being associated with their submissions. As far as I am aware the submissions were published verbatim. I wish to comment that, in my opinion, the Governance Review Panel has played with a dead straight bat and that Mr Beales has been totally professional, in his office of Secretary, in handling my submissions.
The submissions can be seen via www.pccgovernancereview.org.uk and the link Submissions Received.
This blog will be continued in "PCC Governance Review Part Two"
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 07 March 2010
More or less within the same time frame, but otherwise not connected, "The Editors' Code Committee" were holding the annual review of the Code which lays down guide lines to be followed by the Publishing Industry in general. Suggestions in regard, specifically, to this Code were invited, the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee is Mr Ian Beales.
I submitted my suggestions to the Governance Review Panel and to the Secretary of the Editors' Code Committee. On Friday 05 March 2010 the Governance Review published, on line, the submissions they had received from individuals/organisations who were not averse to their names being associated with their submissions. As far as I am aware the submissions were published verbatim. I wish to comment that, in my opinion, the Governance Review Panel has played with a dead straight bat and that Mr Beales has been totally professional, in his office of Secretary, in handling my submissions.
The submissions can be seen via www.pccgovernancereview.org.uk and the link Submissions Received.
This blog will be continued in "PCC Governance Review Part Two"
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 07 March 2010
Thursday 25 February 2010
Help to say Goodbye to Party Politics. Part Two.
In previous blogs I have explained my reasoning in support of aiming for a government that is divorced from Party Politics. As a first step to achieving this I would hope to see an Independent candidate standing in every constituency in the next election. Voters, throughout the UK, will then have the opportunity to show their feelings as regards to the worth of party politics. It is my wish that every seat will be won by an independent. Failing this I would hope that independent candidates win enough seats to ensure that they either have an overall majority or to be able to exert enough pressure to make their views known and courted.
What ever the outcome it is to be hoped that the question as to who is going to be chosen as Prime Minister will depend on the outcome of a vote in Parliament, the same applies in appointing other Ministers and Deputies.
At this point I wish to query the tradition that seems to require that a Government should fall, and an election be held, if they lose a vote in Parliament. Surely that, in modern jargon, is "not a train smash"? It may well indicate that whoever instigated the matter, that was voted on, did not get it right in some way or other but surely that is the point in a democracy, a matter is debated and then voted on. My contention, explained in a previous blog, that, via a vote of no confidence MPs can force a Minister or Deputy to relinquish their office could be invoked if such a drastic step was felt to be needed.
"In a No Political Party Parliament" it virtually goes without saying that members will discuss matters among themselves, and agree to support particular aims as a group, this is not to say that they will always act in the same group. They should, at all times, be acting in a manner that they feel the majority of voters in their constituency would want; at times they may not agree with what their voters want but they must not assume that they know better than their voters, the MPs must follow the wishes of their voters. As explained previously I feel that voters should be able to force the resignation of "their" MP
In debating a matter, MPs, without having to think about pleasing the hierarchy of a party, will be able to express what they think are the views of "their" voters, as well as arguing the pros and cons as they see them. In my opinion this is how a democratic government should function.
Frederick W Gilling Thursday 25 February 2010
What ever the outcome it is to be hoped that the question as to who is going to be chosen as Prime Minister will depend on the outcome of a vote in Parliament, the same applies in appointing other Ministers and Deputies.
At this point I wish to query the tradition that seems to require that a Government should fall, and an election be held, if they lose a vote in Parliament. Surely that, in modern jargon, is "not a train smash"? It may well indicate that whoever instigated the matter, that was voted on, did not get it right in some way or other but surely that is the point in a democracy, a matter is debated and then voted on. My contention, explained in a previous blog, that, via a vote of no confidence MPs can force a Minister or Deputy to relinquish their office could be invoked if such a drastic step was felt to be needed.
"In a No Political Party Parliament" it virtually goes without saying that members will discuss matters among themselves, and agree to support particular aims as a group, this is not to say that they will always act in the same group. They should, at all times, be acting in a manner that they feel the majority of voters in their constituency would want; at times they may not agree with what their voters want but they must not assume that they know better than their voters, the MPs must follow the wishes of their voters. As explained previously I feel that voters should be able to force the resignation of "their" MP
In debating a matter, MPs, without having to think about pleasing the hierarchy of a party, will be able to express what they think are the views of "their" voters, as well as arguing the pros and cons as they see them. In my opinion this is how a democratic government should function.
Frederick W Gilling Thursday 25 February 2010
Friday 19 February 2010
Please help to say goodbye to Party Politics.Part One
Greetings, my first four blogs explain my desire to arrive at a more democratic way of governing the UK than that demonstrated by PARTY POLITICS. Time is now very short, but not too short, to make a meaningful impact in the next election, if you would like to help, the following points are, I think, applicable. I will talk about one constituency for easier presentation,but the points apply to all.
1/ Hope that the major parties promote one candidate each .
2/ Hope that just one candidate, with long residential qualifications in the area, stands as an Independent, he or she may well have previously supported a Party or been connected in some way to local government.
3/ Hope that on polling day a truly massive turnout returns all of the Independent candidates in a text book example of a countrywide landslide victory.
4/ One "hand on heart" pledge that Independent candidates must give before being nominated is that; "If legislation, giving voters the right to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP, has not been passed prior to my election, I will give top priority to seeking the promotion of such legislation.
This blog will be continued in Part Two.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 19 February 2010
1/ Hope that the major parties promote one candidate each .
2/ Hope that just one candidate, with long residential qualifications in the area, stands as an Independent, he or she may well have previously supported a Party or been connected in some way to local government.
3/ Hope that on polling day a truly massive turnout returns all of the Independent candidates in a text book example of a countrywide landslide victory.
4/ One "hand on heart" pledge that Independent candidates must give before being nominated is that; "If legislation, giving voters the right to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP, has not been passed prior to my election, I will give top priority to seeking the promotion of such legislation.
This blog will be continued in Part Two.
Frederick W Gilling Friday 19 February 2010
Tuesday 16 February 2010
Switching to "Party Free Politics" in the UK
Party Politics have, in my opinion, dominated government in the UK for far too long. The hierarchies of the major parties are often much too powerful and in many cases this negates basic aspects of democracy. Is the fact that we went to war with Iraq an example of this?
In order to win the votes of "floating" voters the major parties are not likely to produce manifestos that are too far to the right or left of centre. And, on the evidence mounting up during the last few days, they are all too aware of the need to appeal to persons worried about the services traditionally provided by the NHS and the education system, as well as making very obvious attempts to assure the growing numbers of pensioners, and families on benefits, that they will be looked after. These are areas which were traditionally the domain of labour but are now being cultivated by parties that were, historically, more inclined to the right.
In my opinion a great unknown in the next election will be the anger that is felt by many people over MPs expenses, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the damage that has been inflicted on the world by reckless financial institutions and the fact that many bankers, guilty or not of bringing on the World Financial Armageddon, will still be getting total incomes that to many people are astronomical.
I feel that the time is ripe for party politics to be swept out of sight. My ideal scenario for the next election should see the major parties backing a candidate in each constituency, these would be opposed by just one independent candidate, this candidate should have had a long period of residence in the constituency, he or she may even have belonged to a political party previously. Come election day and there would be a massive turn out of voters and they could show their desire for change by voting for the independent candidate. As I said that would be my ideal scenario.
Another system, that I would like to see introduced, would involve juggling the schedule controlling the days that Parliament sits. The system is as follows, in order to provide officially designated times, for all MPs to meet their constituency members, two days a month would be specified for this purpose. For example the first Wednesday in the month and the third Sunday. The MP would be available, in a suitable hall, paid for by Government, from 9AM until 5PM, say two hours for a working lunch between noon and 2PM. These days and times should be suitable for most people who wished to attend Q and A meetings with their MP. These officially scheduled meetings should not detract from the MP's normal arrangements for meeting and consulting residents of their constituency.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 17 February 2010
In order to win the votes of "floating" voters the major parties are not likely to produce manifestos that are too far to the right or left of centre. And, on the evidence mounting up during the last few days, they are all too aware of the need to appeal to persons worried about the services traditionally provided by the NHS and the education system, as well as making very obvious attempts to assure the growing numbers of pensioners, and families on benefits, that they will be looked after. These are areas which were traditionally the domain of labour but are now being cultivated by parties that were, historically, more inclined to the right.
In my opinion a great unknown in the next election will be the anger that is felt by many people over MPs expenses, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the damage that has been inflicted on the world by reckless financial institutions and the fact that many bankers, guilty or not of bringing on the World Financial Armageddon, will still be getting total incomes that to many people are astronomical.
I feel that the time is ripe for party politics to be swept out of sight. My ideal scenario for the next election should see the major parties backing a candidate in each constituency, these would be opposed by just one independent candidate, this candidate should have had a long period of residence in the constituency, he or she may even have belonged to a political party previously. Come election day and there would be a massive turn out of voters and they could show their desire for change by voting for the independent candidate. As I said that would be my ideal scenario.
Another system, that I would like to see introduced, would involve juggling the schedule controlling the days that Parliament sits. The system is as follows, in order to provide officially designated times, for all MPs to meet their constituency members, two days a month would be specified for this purpose. For example the first Wednesday in the month and the third Sunday. The MP would be available, in a suitable hall, paid for by Government, from 9AM until 5PM, say two hours for a working lunch between noon and 2PM. These days and times should be suitable for most people who wished to attend Q and A meetings with their MP. These officially scheduled meetings should not detract from the MP's normal arrangements for meeting and consulting residents of their constituency.
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 17 February 2010
Electing UK Prime Minister, Ministers & Deputies.Part Two.
The following suggestions are aimed at supporting a Party Free type of government, interestingly though I have just had the thought that they could well be utilised in a situation where no party had an overall majority. They also assume that MPs, Ministers and their Deputies can be forced to resign or relinquish their office in ways outlined previously. In my opinion these methods of censuring MPs or Ministers by voters or MPs are essential for a truly democratic government.
My first suggestion is that at the first meeting of newly elected MPs the Speaker invites nominations for the position of Prime Minister. If there is only one nomination then that is taken as a unanimous result. If there are two nominations then it is a straight contest. If there are more than two nominations the contender with the lowest number of votes drops out, this system continues until there is a clear winner. The MP who was defeated in the only or final round may, if they wish, accept the position of Deputy PM. Failing that the Speaker will call for nominations for the position of Deputy Prime Minister and the election for that position will follow in the same way as that for the PM.
The Speaker will then conduct elections for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and such other Ministers and Deputies as thought necesary. In a previous blog I have proposed that thought be given to letting the position of Speaker be made on a permanent basis, that a serving MP cannot be the Speaker, that a Speaker, once elected by MPs, remains in office until he or she wishes to resign, has a health problem or is voted out of office by MPs.
The Chairmen of Select Committees will be elected by MPs and, once elected, may list the MPs they wish to serve on their Committee. Any MP who objects to any of the MPs named in the list may register his concern and if needs be a vote will be conducted by the Speaker to resolve the issue.
How to obtain "No Party Politics", and related matter will be suggested in my next blog.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 16 February 2010
My first suggestion is that at the first meeting of newly elected MPs the Speaker invites nominations for the position of Prime Minister. If there is only one nomination then that is taken as a unanimous result. If there are two nominations then it is a straight contest. If there are more than two nominations the contender with the lowest number of votes drops out, this system continues until there is a clear winner. The MP who was defeated in the only or final round may, if they wish, accept the position of Deputy PM. Failing that the Speaker will call for nominations for the position of Deputy Prime Minister and the election for that position will follow in the same way as that for the PM.
The Speaker will then conduct elections for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and such other Ministers and Deputies as thought necesary. In a previous blog I have proposed that thought be given to letting the position of Speaker be made on a permanent basis, that a serving MP cannot be the Speaker, that a Speaker, once elected by MPs, remains in office until he or she wishes to resign, has a health problem or is voted out of office by MPs.
The Chairmen of Select Committees will be elected by MPs and, once elected, may list the MPs they wish to serve on their Committee. Any MP who objects to any of the MPs named in the list may register his concern and if needs be a vote will be conducted by the Speaker to resolve the issue.
How to obtain "No Party Politics", and related matter will be suggested in my next blog.
Frederick W Gilling Tuesday 16 February 2010
Monday 15 February 2010
Electing UK Prime Minister, Ministers & Deputies.Part One
In the two blogs preceding this one I advanced suggestions regarding different ways in which MPs could be forced to resign as an MP, and ways in which Ministers or their Deputies could be forced to relinquish their office. I also stated that action aimed at achieving these events should not, obviously, be undertaken lightly, I indicated where methods that I had suggested could be referred to. I also suggested penalties that could be applied if such action did not succeed. Summing up that facet, I freely agree that better ways of compelling the resignation of MPs, or Ministers and/or their Deputies to relinquish their office may well be found. Essentially it must not be too easy or too difficult to instigate such action, what will be difficult will be to find the right balance between those parameters. I feel that the availability of such action is a vital step towards a more democratic and open form of government.
A matter which is closely linked to the above is a question that I have puzzled over, the question is, " Why are leaders of democratically elected governments often lionised or hated, as an individual, with great passion"?, after all they should only support actions that they think the majority of the population want. The wishes of that majority should have been conveyed to them by the persons that had been elected, by the population, to fill that role, in the UK of course this is by MPs.
In recent times the matter has been raised as to whether our Prime Minister should act as a President or as a Chairman. Again, quite recently, many people believe that the government failed to seek the opinion of MPs and that, indeed, the PM did not seek the opinion of his Cabinet. In harsh judgement such behaviour of a PM is approaching that of a dictator.
Turning attention to our elections, are the voters, in effect, voting in a Prime Minister or just some one who happens to be the leader of a party that they support? Many people have been critical of Mr Brown on the grounds that he was not "elected". My knowledge of how different
PMs came to fill that role without being elected is not extensive, there are others of course, notably, I think, Mr Churchill during the darkest period in WW Two. There is little doubt in my mind that he was, at that time, lionised.
I will put forward my suggestions regarding the Election of the PM and other Ministers in my next blog.
Frederick W Gilling. Tuesday 16 February 2010
A matter which is closely linked to the above is a question that I have puzzled over, the question is, " Why are leaders of democratically elected governments often lionised or hated, as an individual, with great passion"?, after all they should only support actions that they think the majority of the population want. The wishes of that majority should have been conveyed to them by the persons that had been elected, by the population, to fill that role, in the UK of course this is by MPs.
In recent times the matter has been raised as to whether our Prime Minister should act as a President or as a Chairman. Again, quite recently, many people believe that the government failed to seek the opinion of MPs and that, indeed, the PM did not seek the opinion of his Cabinet. In harsh judgement such behaviour of a PM is approaching that of a dictator.
Turning attention to our elections, are the voters, in effect, voting in a Prime Minister or just some one who happens to be the leader of a party that they support? Many people have been critical of Mr Brown on the grounds that he was not "elected". My knowledge of how different
PMs came to fill that role without being elected is not extensive, there are others of course, notably, I think, Mr Churchill during the darkest period in WW Two. There is little doubt in my mind that he was, at that time, lionised.
I will put forward my suggestions regarding the Election of the PM and other Ministers in my next blog.
Frederick W Gilling. Tuesday 16 February 2010
Sunday 14 February 2010
Forcing Resignation of MPs. Part Two
In part one I advocated the passing of legislation that would " enable voters to force the immediate resignation of their MP".
The second suggestion I had is that legislation should be formulated that would "enable MPs to force the immediate resignation of any MP". There may be a method already available for MPs to do this, if there is I feel that it should have been used in at least one instance, about a year ago, that being in respect of an MP from whom the Conservatives had withdrawn their whip. This power must not be invoked lightly but, conversely, in order to propose a vote of no confidence in a fellow MP the MPs proposing it need only advance the general complaint that they are not satisfied with the particular MPs performance in Parliament. Penalties can be devised against the proposers if the vote of no confidence is not carried. In my book and in my first blog on politics I have suggested, for example, that the MPs who proposed a vote of no confidence that failed should be forced to resign their seats or, alternatively, they could be fined, say, 3 months salary.
My third suggestion is that MPs need to be able to force any Minister or Deputy Minister to relinquish their office by proposing a vote of no confidence. Here again a penalty should be imposed if the vote is not carried, in this context it should be a fine of so many months salary. If such a vote is proposed the Minister or Deputy Minister may relinquish their office before the vote is taken. Further ideas that have a bearing on the above will be raised in my next blog.
In closing this blog I will quote a few words from my first blog, these are; "There is, I am sure, a prime need to give every responsible person in the country a justified feeling that they, the people, are fairly in control of events, other than natural disasters, and that their efforts and opinions, on a grand scale, do matter and are seriously considered".
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 14 February 2010
The second suggestion I had is that legislation should be formulated that would "enable MPs to force the immediate resignation of any MP". There may be a method already available for MPs to do this, if there is I feel that it should have been used in at least one instance, about a year ago, that being in respect of an MP from whom the Conservatives had withdrawn their whip. This power must not be invoked lightly but, conversely, in order to propose a vote of no confidence in a fellow MP the MPs proposing it need only advance the general complaint that they are not satisfied with the particular MPs performance in Parliament. Penalties can be devised against the proposers if the vote of no confidence is not carried. In my book and in my first blog on politics I have suggested, for example, that the MPs who proposed a vote of no confidence that failed should be forced to resign their seats or, alternatively, they could be fined, say, 3 months salary.
My third suggestion is that MPs need to be able to force any Minister or Deputy Minister to relinquish their office by proposing a vote of no confidence. Here again a penalty should be imposed if the vote is not carried, in this context it should be a fine of so many months salary. If such a vote is proposed the Minister or Deputy Minister may relinquish their office before the vote is taken. Further ideas that have a bearing on the above will be raised in my next blog.
In closing this blog I will quote a few words from my first blog, these are; "There is, I am sure, a prime need to give every responsible person in the country a justified feeling that they, the people, are fairly in control of events, other than natural disasters, and that their efforts and opinions, on a grand scale, do matter and are seriously considered".
Frederick W Gilling Sunday 14 February 2010
Saturday 13 February 2010
Voters Forcing Resignation of "their" MP.
On 15th December 2009 I wrote a letter and headed it "Open Letter to all of the UK's MPs", a copy of this was published on this site. I wish to record my sincere thanks to the providers of this facility for this absolutely fantastic service.
On 16th December 2009 I sent a copy of the letter to the leaders of our three main political parties, I asked them to kindly arrange for a copy to be given to each of their MPs. Not one of the letters to the leaders has been acknowledged and I do not know if any MP received a copy of my "Open" letter.
The open letter asked for three new pieces of legislation to be introduced, preferably before the next election. The first piece of suggested legislation was "Voters need to be able to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP". Mr Cameron, maybe a year ago, did raise the issue of MPs being recalled by the voters in the MP's constituency, I subsequently formed the opinion that Mr Clegg, in principle, was not averse to the idea, evidently several American States can do something similar. In my blog, Politics One, on this site I suggested several ways in which such legislation could be formulated. These ways are broadly similar to those I wrote in a self published book about two years ago.
In the last couple of weeks it has dawned on me, rather forcibly, that many MPs would be very averse to passing that particular piece of legislation, at this moment, as it could be used by angry voters to force the resignation of MPs whom they thought had exploited the expenses regulations. Perhaps such legislation could be enacted, by this government, with a starting date of 01 August 2010. I feel that it is an essential piece of legislation.
In my next blog I will deal with the second and third suggestions mentioned. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 13 February 2010
On 16th December 2009 I sent a copy of the letter to the leaders of our three main political parties, I asked them to kindly arrange for a copy to be given to each of their MPs. Not one of the letters to the leaders has been acknowledged and I do not know if any MP received a copy of my "Open" letter.
The open letter asked for three new pieces of legislation to be introduced, preferably before the next election. The first piece of suggested legislation was "Voters need to be able to force the immediate resignation of "their" MP". Mr Cameron, maybe a year ago, did raise the issue of MPs being recalled by the voters in the MP's constituency, I subsequently formed the opinion that Mr Clegg, in principle, was not averse to the idea, evidently several American States can do something similar. In my blog, Politics One, on this site I suggested several ways in which such legislation could be formulated. These ways are broadly similar to those I wrote in a self published book about two years ago.
In the last couple of weeks it has dawned on me, rather forcibly, that many MPs would be very averse to passing that particular piece of legislation, at this moment, as it could be used by angry voters to force the resignation of MPs whom they thought had exploited the expenses regulations. Perhaps such legislation could be enacted, by this government, with a starting date of 01 August 2010. I feel that it is an essential piece of legislation.
In my next blog I will deal with the second and third suggestions mentioned. Thank you.
Frederick W Gilling Saturday 13 February 2010
Friday 5 February 2010
Complaining Directly to Newspapers
Over a year ago, I sent a six page letter to the leaders of the three main political parties in the UK, as well as to eight of the national papers. The letter was prompted by a deep feeling of injustice I had over a decision by the Press Complaints Commission. This decision caused me, almost involuntarily, to really assess the press and its impact on so many aspects of our lives.
In the letter I stated that, while being very much in favour of the freedom of the press, within the bounds of national security, I was also totally against the unbridled power of the press. I lived in a country for many years where the press was not free and that is truly a deplorable situation.
As regards the power of the press in large democratic countries there are usually several papers, owned by different people or companies. This tends to level out the impact of their power in respect of, for example, influencing the result of elections. Interestingly a major UK national daily announced that they were switching their support from the government party to that of the opposition. However I feel that most politicians, public figures and celebrities are very aware of the power of the press and would think long and hard about being in any way critical of a paper or individual staff members. The following five paragraphs are as written in my letter to the politicians and papers.
"As a first step, to curtailing some aspects of the power of the press, I suggest that a law is passed requiring that every newspaper or magazine, offered for sale to the public in the UK, should on page three of every issue publish in the top left hand corner of that page the essential parts of the law, under words such as "This space is reserved for complaints against this paper". The exact wording should be specified in the law. Legal experts will write the law of course but the aims are covered below.
If a reader thinks a particular article or statement is distasteful, hurtful, inaccurate or? or? they may write a letter of complaint to the paper, no longer than (say) 100 words.
The paper must publish the complaint as written providing it complies with
existing laws regarding, for example, bad language. If more than two complaints, over essentially the same matter, are received then the paper need only publish one but must also state the number of complaints received, and give the names only of the writers of the unpublished letters.
The existing laws regarding race, libel and/or slander will apply and legal action by the newspaper, complainant or the police will, as usual, be at their discretion, in which case the courts will decide the outcome.
I feel,that in the course of time, well established and acceptable boundaries will be formulated regarding potentially distasteful, misleading, damaging and/or hurtful remarks or statements, beyond which newspapers, contributors and complainants will step at their peril". End of quote from my original letter to politicians and papers.
In thinking about the rallying call "Freedom of the Press" I am sure that most people thinking about that expression realise that it needs to be qualified in some respect or respects. That raises the question "Who has the right to determine in which way or ways should it be qualified"? and having answered that the next question is, "Who has the MIGHT to enforce the qualifications and impose punishment for any transgression of the qualification"?
One obvious qualification, I think, is in respect to National Security, guide lines to this may well be in existence, if not they should be. They could be backed up with the instruction, " If you have any doubts whatsoever about an article, bearing on National Security, that you wish to publish get in touch with "So and So" and ask for an interview to discuss it.
Another area where the " Freedom" is subject to some form or other, I know not what, of qualification is in connection with swear words, particularly the four or seven letter words connected with sexual acts. If a paper were to come out with front page headlines, containing any of those words, has a crime been committed? And if so what would the charge be?
The next questions, "Is the Freedom of the Press a misnomer"? followed by "If the answer to that question is yes do we accept, at least tacitly, that it is a misnomer, because we all know that it is qualified in several ways, but so what?
I feel, though I may be in a minority group, that the power of the press can be used in many ways to shape public opinion, I feel sure that the press has it in its power to demonstrate what is acceptable behaviour in many aspects of life in the UK at the moment. I have suggested that legislation should be enacted to enable reader's complaints to be published in the paper concerned, there is nothing to stop the publishing industry as a whole, or even individual publications, from agreeing to that suggestion, or something like it, without the need for legislation. That I feel would be a magnanimous and much appreciated action truly in line with the objective of self-regulation. This may result in more papers being sold but it should certainly not result in a fall in sales.
A new thought, at least on my part, regarding complaints is that draconian laws, and supreme technical expertise will be needed to control the use of the internet in "Publishing" anything whatever under the guise of "News", or even "In the public interest". The papers have power but one shudders to think about the ultimate power potential of the online route to untold millions of eyes and, consequently, minds. Not only the established media have access to that route for it is also available to virtually anyone with the ability to use the technology needed. Vast capital expenditure is not essential as low cost, even free, use of such technology is provided by many public libraries.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Sunday 07 February 2010
In the letter I stated that, while being very much in favour of the freedom of the press, within the bounds of national security, I was also totally against the unbridled power of the press. I lived in a country for many years where the press was not free and that is truly a deplorable situation.
As regards the power of the press in large democratic countries there are usually several papers, owned by different people or companies. This tends to level out the impact of their power in respect of, for example, influencing the result of elections. Interestingly a major UK national daily announced that they were switching their support from the government party to that of the opposition. However I feel that most politicians, public figures and celebrities are very aware of the power of the press and would think long and hard about being in any way critical of a paper or individual staff members. The following five paragraphs are as written in my letter to the politicians and papers.
"As a first step, to curtailing some aspects of the power of the press, I suggest that a law is passed requiring that every newspaper or magazine, offered for sale to the public in the UK, should on page three of every issue publish in the top left hand corner of that page the essential parts of the law, under words such as "This space is reserved for complaints against this paper". The exact wording should be specified in the law. Legal experts will write the law of course but the aims are covered below.
If a reader thinks a particular article or statement is distasteful, hurtful, inaccurate or? or? they may write a letter of complaint to the paper, no longer than (say) 100 words.
The paper must publish the complaint as written providing it complies with
existing laws regarding, for example, bad language. If more than two complaints, over essentially the same matter, are received then the paper need only publish one but must also state the number of complaints received, and give the names only of the writers of the unpublished letters.
The existing laws regarding race, libel and/or slander will apply and legal action by the newspaper, complainant or the police will, as usual, be at their discretion, in which case the courts will decide the outcome.
I feel,that in the course of time, well established and acceptable boundaries will be formulated regarding potentially distasteful, misleading, damaging and/or hurtful remarks or statements, beyond which newspapers, contributors and complainants will step at their peril". End of quote from my original letter to politicians and papers.
In thinking about the rallying call "Freedom of the Press" I am sure that most people thinking about that expression realise that it needs to be qualified in some respect or respects. That raises the question "Who has the right to determine in which way or ways should it be qualified"? and having answered that the next question is, "Who has the MIGHT to enforce the qualifications and impose punishment for any transgression of the qualification"?
One obvious qualification, I think, is in respect to National Security, guide lines to this may well be in existence, if not they should be. They could be backed up with the instruction, " If you have any doubts whatsoever about an article, bearing on National Security, that you wish to publish get in touch with "So and So" and ask for an interview to discuss it.
Another area where the " Freedom" is subject to some form or other, I know not what, of qualification is in connection with swear words, particularly the four or seven letter words connected with sexual acts. If a paper were to come out with front page headlines, containing any of those words, has a crime been committed? And if so what would the charge be?
The next questions, "Is the Freedom of the Press a misnomer"? followed by "If the answer to that question is yes do we accept, at least tacitly, that it is a misnomer, because we all know that it is qualified in several ways, but so what?
I feel, though I may be in a minority group, that the power of the press can be used in many ways to shape public opinion, I feel sure that the press has it in its power to demonstrate what is acceptable behaviour in many aspects of life in the UK at the moment. I have suggested that legislation should be enacted to enable reader's complaints to be published in the paper concerned, there is nothing to stop the publishing industry as a whole, or even individual publications, from agreeing to that suggestion, or something like it, without the need for legislation. That I feel would be a magnanimous and much appreciated action truly in line with the objective of self-regulation. This may result in more papers being sold but it should certainly not result in a fall in sales.
A new thought, at least on my part, regarding complaints is that draconian laws, and supreme technical expertise will be needed to control the use of the internet in "Publishing" anything whatever under the guise of "News", or even "In the public interest". The papers have power but one shudders to think about the ultimate power potential of the online route to untold millions of eyes and, consequently, minds. Not only the established media have access to that route for it is also available to virtually anyone with the ability to use the technology needed. Vast capital expenditure is not essential as low cost, even free, use of such technology is provided by many public libraries.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Sunday 07 February 2010
Thursday 4 February 2010
My Ideas for a New Look PCC. Part Two.
In Part One I explained my thoughts about the expression "Independent Self-Regulating" and then went on to deride it as a charade as, I think, the expression contradicts itself and should not be used as such. In the case of the publishing industry the expression can also be described as a facade behind which the industry can hide. The PCC, which presumably the industry created, helps to prop up this facade, indeed they often pat themselves on the back as they thicken the wall by claiming the success of "Independent Self-Regulation". I repeat the question, how can the word "Independent" be used when the industry tells them what rules [Code] to follow and pays their wages to do it?
At this point I feel another question can be asked, why the need for self regulation? Part of the answer could well be that many editors realised the need for curbs, within the industry, to restrain practices that they had felt were unbecoming. Yet again some editors and/or owners may well have thought that if the industry itself did not attempt, where necessary, to clean up its act then Government may seek to regulate the industry, and impose its own legislation for a Government created regulating body to follow. Such a body could truly claim to be an Independent Regulating body but no one could claim that it was a self- regulating body as, in fact, it would be an imposed regulating body.
As I have acted, metaphorically, as a bad cop so far, I will, all part of the act, switch to being a good cop. Having been exposed to a large range of the PCC's activities, and, though, to a much smaller encompass of those of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee I do feel that I know enough to be able to comment, favourably, on both of these bodies. The comment being that they both have honourable and commendable intentions, I put forward that statement with the hope that they will be able to, at least, acknowledge that a drastic change is needed to be able to do justice to the concept of self-regulation of the publishing industry, and in so doing gain the approval and acceptance, albeit in some cases grudgingly, of most of their critics.
Some of my suggestions are:
Firstly, the PCC and the Editors' Code of Practice Committee continue mainly, but not exclusively, in their present and accepted roles.
Secondly, neither of these bodies must countenance the use of the word "Independent" in describing the function of the PCC.
Thirdly, great stress should be placed on the words "Self-Regulating", as that concept will exactly describe the cohesion that exists in the publishing industry regarding, the rules created by the industry and the body created, also by the industry, to enforce those rules.
I have covered most of the following points in previous blogs and/or letters but, in rounding off this blog I will repeat and enlarge on some of them below. I also accept that there must be many more proposals made with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness and acceptance of the
publishing industry's self-regulation.
The PCC must have power to punish publications that have clearly not abided by the Code and have not accepted instructions from the PCC as to what to do to resolve a complaint.
The PCC voluntarily offer to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act
The PCC voluntarily ask for an ombudsman to be appointed to cover their actions if needed.
The PCC must have the power, even the duty, acting on their own initiative, without the need for a complaint from the public, to point out to the publisher that they have infringed the Code either in word and/or in spirit.
That the Editors' Code of Practice Committee consider writing in a clause in the Code that gives clear parameters within which the right of reply is obligatory.
That the same Committee consider formulating a clause under which newspapers, particularly, give space to complaints of readers. I will give suggestions regarding this specific matter in my next blog.
If the PCC cannot resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of both parties then they put the matter to the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. In effect that Committee is acting as though they are an industry court of appeal, if that Committee's decision fails to resolve the matter, to the satisfaction of both parties involved in the complaint, then at least the industry can claim to have followed their path of self-regulation to the end. From then on both parties can obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act, and/or seek the services of the Ombudsman, and/or consider legal action. In that connection the self-regulation of the industry could be tested to the limit.
In explanation of this please consider the following, the PCC tells the publication to follow a specific clause or clauses in the Code, the publication declines to do so. The PCC put the matter before the Editors' Code of Practice Committee, they agree with the PCC's decision but the publication does not follow the Editors' instructions. The PCC could now offer to pay the complainant's costs in an action against the publication concerned. That would show the industry's commitment to self-regulation.
Another suggestion I have made follows this paragraph. This suggestion could well be adopted if the PCC is given more power, it would support both their aim of "Fast" as well as the spirit of self regulation.
Two senior personnel in the PCC secretariat should be given the authority to demand, in simple non complex cases, the appropriate action from the publication concerned. If the demand is met the case need not be referred to the Commission Members. A thought in addition to this is that
"All Cases Referred to the Commission Members Should be Adjudicated at a Formal Meeting of the Members". The Members should not be given draft resolutions by the secretariat. This should make it easier for recording, under suitable headings, the data regarding how complaints were dealt with by the PCC as a whole, and at which level complaints were handled.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Friday 04 February 2010
At this point I feel another question can be asked, why the need for self regulation? Part of the answer could well be that many editors realised the need for curbs, within the industry, to restrain practices that they had felt were unbecoming. Yet again some editors and/or owners may well have thought that if the industry itself did not attempt, where necessary, to clean up its act then Government may seek to regulate the industry, and impose its own legislation for a Government created regulating body to follow. Such a body could truly claim to be an Independent Regulating body but no one could claim that it was a self- regulating body as, in fact, it would be an imposed regulating body.
As I have acted, metaphorically, as a bad cop so far, I will, all part of the act, switch to being a good cop. Having been exposed to a large range of the PCC's activities, and, though, to a much smaller encompass of those of the Editors' Code of Practice Committee I do feel that I know enough to be able to comment, favourably, on both of these bodies. The comment being that they both have honourable and commendable intentions, I put forward that statement with the hope that they will be able to, at least, acknowledge that a drastic change is needed to be able to do justice to the concept of self-regulation of the publishing industry, and in so doing gain the approval and acceptance, albeit in some cases grudgingly, of most of their critics.
Some of my suggestions are:
Firstly, the PCC and the Editors' Code of Practice Committee continue mainly, but not exclusively, in their present and accepted roles.
Secondly, neither of these bodies must countenance the use of the word "Independent" in describing the function of the PCC.
Thirdly, great stress should be placed on the words "Self-Regulating", as that concept will exactly describe the cohesion that exists in the publishing industry regarding, the rules created by the industry and the body created, also by the industry, to enforce those rules.
I have covered most of the following points in previous blogs and/or letters but, in rounding off this blog I will repeat and enlarge on some of them below. I also accept that there must be many more proposals made with the aim of enhancing the effectiveness and acceptance of the
publishing industry's self-regulation.
The PCC must have power to punish publications that have clearly not abided by the Code and have not accepted instructions from the PCC as to what to do to resolve a complaint.
The PCC voluntarily offer to be subject to the Freedom of Information Act
The PCC voluntarily ask for an ombudsman to be appointed to cover their actions if needed.
The PCC must have the power, even the duty, acting on their own initiative, without the need for a complaint from the public, to point out to the publisher that they have infringed the Code either in word and/or in spirit.
That the Editors' Code of Practice Committee consider writing in a clause in the Code that gives clear parameters within which the right of reply is obligatory.
That the same Committee consider formulating a clause under which newspapers, particularly, give space to complaints of readers. I will give suggestions regarding this specific matter in my next blog.
If the PCC cannot resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of both parties then they put the matter to the Editors' Code of Practice Committee. In effect that Committee is acting as though they are an industry court of appeal, if that Committee's decision fails to resolve the matter, to the satisfaction of both parties involved in the complaint, then at least the industry can claim to have followed their path of self-regulation to the end. From then on both parties can obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act, and/or seek the services of the Ombudsman, and/or consider legal action. In that connection the self-regulation of the industry could be tested to the limit.
In explanation of this please consider the following, the PCC tells the publication to follow a specific clause or clauses in the Code, the publication declines to do so. The PCC put the matter before the Editors' Code of Practice Committee, they agree with the PCC's decision but the publication does not follow the Editors' instructions. The PCC could now offer to pay the complainant's costs in an action against the publication concerned. That would show the industry's commitment to self-regulation.
Another suggestion I have made follows this paragraph. This suggestion could well be adopted if the PCC is given more power, it would support both their aim of "Fast" as well as the spirit of self regulation.
Two senior personnel in the PCC secretariat should be given the authority to demand, in simple non complex cases, the appropriate action from the publication concerned. If the demand is met the case need not be referred to the Commission Members. A thought in addition to this is that
"All Cases Referred to the Commission Members Should be Adjudicated at a Formal Meeting of the Members". The Members should not be given draft resolutions by the secretariat. This should make it easier for recording, under suitable headings, the data regarding how complaints were dealt with by the PCC as a whole, and at which level complaints were handled.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Friday 04 February 2010
Tuesday 2 February 2010
My Ideas for a New Look PCC. Part one.
Addendum to my previous blog that commented on an online article published by the Press Gazette on 21 January 2010.
As background information to this new blog please note that, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission [PCC], Baroness Buscombe, initiated an Independent Governance Review of the PCC, and invited submissions to the Panel formed to conduct the review.
More or less at the same time the Editors' Code of Practice Committee are due to hold their annual review of their Code, they also invited submissions in regard to their Code. It should be stressed that these reviews are completely separate.
I have written twice to both the Governance Panel and the Editors' Committee. The following paragraph was communicated to both Panel and Committee.
"Kindly consider the following reasoning, an industry can be independently regulated, an industry can be self-regulated but, I contend, an industry cannot be independently self-regulated. If the industry happens to be the publishing industry the power of the press can be used to support the effectiveness of their "Independent Self-Regulation". When the PCC self praise themselves, as they do, regarding the effectiveness of independent self-regulating they should at the same time acknowledge that they are dependent on the publishing industry, for the Code they have to follow, and for the funding, from the same source, that enables them to operate. Having acknowledged that they should think long and hard about the correctness of using the word independent in regard to their status." End of quote.
In trying to reconcile "independent self-regulation" with the fact that the PCC is dependent on the publishing industry for its very existence, I feel that both parties are guilty of trying to justify and perpetuate an Alice in Wonderland type charade. This coupled with other shortcomings has left both parties open to criticism. In my next blog I will outline what I think will go a long way toward justifying the expression "Self- Regulating" as well being much more effective in dealing with complaints, satisfying most critics and forestalling Government intervention except in exceptional circumstances. One example of that being "A right of reply", or, to show that I am, hopefully, not lacking in humour "A write of reply", or even "Rite of reply". There is, of course, nothing to stop the publishing industry introducing a cast iron right of reply themselves.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick W Gilling
Tuesday 02 February 2010
As background information to this new blog please note that, the Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission [PCC], Baroness Buscombe, initiated an Independent Governance Review of the PCC, and invited submissions to the Panel formed to conduct the review.
More or less at the same time the Editors' Code of Practice Committee are due to hold their annual review of their Code, they also invited submissions in regard to their Code. It should be stressed that these reviews are completely separate.
I have written twice to both the Governance Panel and the Editors' Committee. The following paragraph was communicated to both Panel and Committee.
"Kindly consider the following reasoning, an industry can be independently regulated, an industry can be self-regulated but, I contend, an industry cannot be independently self-regulated. If the industry happens to be the publishing industry the power of the press can be used to support the effectiveness of their "Independent Self-Regulation". When the PCC self praise themselves, as they do, regarding the effectiveness of independent self-regulating they should at the same time acknowledge that they are dependent on the publishing industry, for the Code they have to follow, and for the funding, from the same source, that enables them to operate. Having acknowledged that they should think long and hard about the correctness of using the word independent in regard to their status." End of quote.
In trying to reconcile "independent self-regulation" with the fact that the PCC is dependent on the publishing industry for its very existence, I feel that both parties are guilty of trying to justify and perpetuate an Alice in Wonderland type charade. This coupled with other shortcomings has left both parties open to criticism. In my next blog I will outline what I think will go a long way toward justifying the expression "Self- Regulating" as well being much more effective in dealing with complaints, satisfying most critics and forestalling Government intervention except in exceptional circumstances. One example of that being "A right of reply", or, to show that I am, hopefully, not lacking in humour "A write of reply", or even "Rite of reply". There is, of course, nothing to stop the publishing industry introducing a cast iron right of reply themselves.
Yours sincerely,
Frederick W Gilling
Tuesday 02 February 2010
Thursday 21 January 2010
Comment on article in Press Gazette on 21 Jan 2010
The Press Gazette [Journalism Today] publish, online, a Daily Newsletter. This shows articles of interest to journalists. I am not connected to the publishing industry in any way, apart from having had two books "self-published". However I do find that many of the items in the Daily Newsletter are very interesting and comment is invited on them. On 21st January 2010 there was an article by Mr Oliver Luft about press regulation, I submitted a comment on the article and, as I have previously posted blogs about the Press Complaints Commission I have reproduced this comment below.
In discussing the regulation of the newspaper industry it is essential that the exact meaning of the word "Independent" is made clear, not the least aspect being where the money comes from that funds an independent body. It should also be crystal clear as to who is conducting a survey and for who is it being conducted.
In considering the words " ----- a self-regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry ----- " I would argue that the English language is being strained by the use of the words "self" and "independent". Surely it is impossible to be "self-regulatory" and "independent" at the same time. The part sentence should read either " ----- a self-regulatory body for the newspaper industry ----- " or " ----- a regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry ----- ".
The mind is also strained when the independent self-regulatory body has to observe a Code of Practice formulated only by members of the industry that is being regulated. It is being
similarly strained when the self- regulating body is funded by the industry that it is self-regulating. If my memory serves me correctly no less a person than our Prime Minister
Mr Gordon Brown, when referring to MP's expenses said words similar in meaning to "Self- regulation does not work".
Surprisingly, in spite of what I have written above, I think the self- regulation of the newspaper industry by the PCC could be conducted more effectively providing;
They had power.
They had teeth.
They were prepared to use their teeth.
That they were, voluntarily, subject to the "Freedom of Information Act".
That they, voluntarily, subjected themselves to an Ombudsman.
I have written seven blogs regarding the PCC, these can be seen via
http://blrcfwg.blogspot.com Party Free Politics also feature.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
In discussing the regulation of the newspaper industry it is essential that the exact meaning of the word "Independent" is made clear, not the least aspect being where the money comes from that funds an independent body. It should also be crystal clear as to who is conducting a survey and for who is it being conducted.
In considering the words " ----- a self-regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry ----- " I would argue that the English language is being strained by the use of the words "self" and "independent". Surely it is impossible to be "self-regulatory" and "independent" at the same time. The part sentence should read either " ----- a self-regulatory body for the newspaper industry ----- " or " ----- a regulatory body independent of the newspaper industry ----- ".
The mind is also strained when the independent self-regulatory body has to observe a Code of Practice formulated only by members of the industry that is being regulated. It is being
similarly strained when the self- regulating body is funded by the industry that it is self-regulating. If my memory serves me correctly no less a person than our Prime Minister
Mr Gordon Brown, when referring to MP's expenses said words similar in meaning to "Self- regulation does not work".
Surprisingly, in spite of what I have written above, I think the self- regulation of the newspaper industry by the PCC could be conducted more effectively providing;
They had power.
They had teeth.
They were prepared to use their teeth.
That they were, voluntarily, subject to the "Freedom of Information Act".
That they, voluntarily, subjected themselves to an Ombudsman.
I have written seven blogs regarding the PCC, these can be seen via
http://blrcfwg.blogspot.com Party Free Politics also feature.
Yours sincerely
Frederick W Gilling
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)