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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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