Monday 04 May 2015 Let the election due in 3 days time be the death knell of Party Politics.
Start planning that will ensure that at the next election the candidates are all independents.
To achieve that political parties should be banned, the result will be a far more democratic method of government. Frederick W Gilling.

Just keeping in touch

I have not posted a blog for some time due to other activities. There have been plenty of situations that I think deserve comment. The different sports that have been tainted because of bookmaker inspired attempts to "fix" the results now include snooker.
It is interesting to note the various ways that the issue price of Royal Mail shares has been defended and attacked, I had to smile at the man who said something like "If I sold my house today for so many hundred thousand and the next day the price went up 38% I would be very cross"
What are the pros and cons of nationalizing various industries? I would like to sit in on a well controlled debate on that subject. Is the prime function an attempt to restrict the power of unions?  A theme that I would like to see thought through is "Should we all be more conscious of our conscience?"
FWG Tuesday 15 October 2013

Cause for great concern.

Cause for great concern.    Started 16/03/2013 Finished 19/032013

I have listed below, in no particular order, causes for concern. Many of them, and the impact of them as a whole, are, I think, a cause for great concern.

[1]   The failure of many aspects of the NHS in Staffordshire. Other areas may also have failed to fulfil their expected role. It is alleged that patients have died as a result of these failures.

[2]   Several of the top UK banks “juggling” with the LIBOR interest rate. Several international banks have been heavily fined.

[3]   Several of the top UK banks having to make provision to pay back huge amounts of money to refund PPI charges to their clients. In many cases, I understand, the clients did not know they were paying for such insurance. The overall amounts set aside being, according to one source, 9 Billion UK Pounds.

[4]   The cover up for years in relation to the Hillsborough disaster.

[5]   The revelations in regard to Jimmy Savile.

[6]   Similar revelations in regard to other people and locations.

[7]   MP’s expenses.

[8]   Irish catholic workhouses for women.

[9]   Alleged sexual abuse of children and adults by clerics, often high ranking officials.

[10]   Horse and pig meat sold as beef.

[11]   Teenagers being encouraged to publish revealing photographs of themselves on line.

[12]   Girls in their early teens being “groomed” for sex.

[13]   The need for the Leveson Inquiry    

[14]   Whistle blowers being unable to find employment after exposing wrong doing.

[15]   Drivers deliberately causing a crash with the aim of making money out of it.

[16]   The news that 400 or so employees of a UK bank earned over a million £s in one year.

[17]  Abuse in care homes.

[18]   Children sent to Australia from the UK, during and after WW Two.

One of the causes for concern is why such events as listed above have been allowed to occur?  Another of the causes for concern is the thought that religions, that have existed for considerably more than 2000 years, have failed in their attempts to embed morality in their followers.  Surely there is an over riding need for every person to be conscious of their conscience. If it transpires that because of, religious or other beliefs, there is an obvious total difference ingrained in various sectors of a population as to what bothers their conscience then steps should be taken to ensure that these sectors are separated. Such differences have to be in relation to serious matters.

F W Gilling     Saturday 23 March 2013

  

Follow up to "Fred's Law"

Follow up to “Fred’s Law” as expounded in my letter to you dated 10/07/2012.

That letter, with different covering letters, was sent to eight persons; this follow up letter will be sent to the same eight persons without covering letters. Five of the letters went to MPs and I thought they would at least be acknowledged, I was wrong as only two of those five replied..

The first reply, on 16/07/2012, was on behalf of The Leader of the Opposition and was much  appreciated although it did not comment on the gist of “Fred’s Law”.

The second reply, on 08/08/2012, was on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, this thanked me and told me that it was receiving attention.

I also received a reply, on 16/08/2012 from The Daily Mail in response to the letter sent to The Director of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc. This thanked me and informed me that my letter would be passed on to relevant heads of departments who would contact me should they wish to discuss my ideas in further detail.

I did not receive replies from The Telegraph or the BBC. Many months ago I wrote a comment to the BBC on line, one interesting snippet of information was that not all comments would be read !!  I wonder how many people know that?

I feel very strongly that legislation similar to “Fred’s Law” needs to be considered. In recent weeks at least one major UK bank has brought the UK into disrepute, this being in connection with financial dealings with Iran, and the same can be said about the company, G4S, responsible for security at Olympic Games venues.

Several years ago I penned the following, “There is, I am sure, a prime need to give every responsible person in the county 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.” Unquote.  Serious letters that are not even acknowledged do little to promote the feeling that opinions are considered. My email address is jofregilling@yahoo.com and this may be used.

Yours sincerely

F W Gilling            Written on Tuesday 11 September 2012

Copies to:  The MP for West Dorset. The Prime Minister. The Deputy PM. The Lord Chancellor. The Leader of the Opposition. The Director of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc. The Editor of the Telegraph. The Director General of the BBC.

[Whoops, will grab a little wriggle room to take in Cabinet reshuffle and add Minister Without Portfolio to keep everyone in picture.]

From: Mr F W Gilling, 

Fred's Law

New Legislation to protect security, economy and reputation of the UK.

Suggested and written by Frederick William Gilling.  Tuesday 10 July 2012

Until such legislation is proposed, passed and named it could, for ease of reference, be called  “Fred’s Law”.

In recent years I have become annoyed at hearing quotes such as:

I acted within the rules.

I did no wrong.

It was not against the law at that time.

Everyone was doing it.

Within the last three weeks the clever tax avoidance method [K2 scheme in Jersey] used by some people and the manipulation of LIBOR, by at least one huge bank, has prompted me to revise and rework a suggestion that I made some time ago.

Examples of the above defences were provided by the problems with MP’s expenses, the Phoenix Four and various Casino type “investments” and “creative accounting” procedures, these investments often made with other peoples money.

I feel and hope, that the following suggested legislation would be welcomed by the majority of UK citizens. “ If any UK citizen commits an act, anywhere in the world, that has a serious detrimental effect on the security, economy or reputation of the UK, they shall be guilty of an offence.” Legal experts should compile the legislation but it must be kept as clear and as simple as possible. Having said that, and from a heavily biased viewpoint, I feel it is very clear and simple as written, providing the judiciary, through case law, establish the boundaries of “serious” as well as potential situations involving members of Government and the defence forces, acting with the authority invested in them.    The punishment for committing such a crime can range from a magistrate dismissing the case for being too trivial, up to the UK Supreme Court imposing a fine, large enough to cover any financial loss involved, and or imprisonment up to life.

LIBOR manipulation broke Fred’s Law in respect of both the economy and reputation of the UK.  Those responsible for the manipulation could find themselves paupers and maybe prisoners as well.

On a slightly different, but applicable path, I note that for a couple of years there has been a fair amount of interest in the salaries and “perks” of Directors and CEO’s etc.  Has any notice been taken of The Greenbury Report of July 1995?

F W Gilling

Copies to: The MP for West Dorset. The Prime Minister. The Deputy PM. The Lord Chancellor. The Leader of the Opposition. The Director of the Daily Mail and General Trust plc. The Editor of the Telegraph. The Director General of the BBC.   

  

Fiscal Policy and "National Banks"

National Banks                          Started on Saturday 14 January 2012

As a self confessed layman in world financial matters I needed to know more about the present mayhem in world finance and so, with the aid of Google Search, I again set about trying to understand the reason, or reasons, responsible for the mayhem.

One would have thought that after a gestation period of a couple of thousand years, or more, the world should have ironed out most of the major bugs and arrived at a stable well proven way of controlling the extremely dangerous weapon called money.  The present problems with the Euro, massive debts to countries and banks and severe fiscal “miscalculations” have occupied top economic experts for well over a year and still there does not seem to be a solution.

With names like National Banks, Central Banks and Federal Reserve the first nasty shock, to laymen like me, is to find out that the majority of these banks are owned by private individuals / organisations and not by countries

.

Several centuries ago a system used in England involved a “Treasury”.  In normal times taxes of various sorts were paid in to the Treasury and the Treasury supplied money to the Government to run the country. On a yearly basis, well in advance, Government would publish a Budget, this was often designed to produce a surplus to ensure that the Treasury was always well funded.

In times other than normal, different factors such as wars, financial “Bubbles”, plagues and famines could severely strain the system.  Government could issue “I owe you” pieces of paper for what they needed, raise special taxes or borrow money from any source willing to lend it to Government at an agreed rate of interest. If the type of currency was a precious metal planning had to take account of the fact that there was not enough of it available!  Somewhere along the way the role of the Treasury changed and Government borrowed more and more money from private sources and paid more and more interest to these private sources, this practice has pertained to date.

Following various leads on Google I chanced upon an article which I found extremely interesting. The article, by Loren Collins was entitled “The Truth about Tytler.”. The author did his very best to attribute the various quotations to the correct person.  To any reader who is interested in what follows I would suggest that they track down Loren Collins’ article as it is quite long. I have quoted parts of the article, maybe out   of context and/or position, for, in my opinion, they open a line of thought that can easily be applied to many situations developing in current economic and political matters.

I quote,  “Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.  After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.”  - Elmer T Peterson.”

Again I quote, “The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years,”  and quoting even more.  “Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.” Unquote, but again I stress that Loren Collins goes much deeper into the matter and his article is very worth reading. In the “order of events” quoted in this paragraph it is interesting to postulate as to where the populations of various democracies are at this time and maybe even more interesting to wonder where countries participating in the “Arab Spring” slot into the “order of events.”

I feel that democracies need to consider very carefully the establishment of basic “National Treasuries”. All Government imposed taxes and any other Government  income is paid into the National Treasury which, in turn, passes money to Government as per the accepted Budget. Neither Government nor the National Treasury can borrow money from the private sector. With the system running correctly there will be no question of National Debt for there will not be any. If due to unforeseen circumstances the Treasury, on paper, runs out of money then more will be printed or “created”. The “world” will quickly judge the “worth” of the country’s currency and that will be reflected in the exchange rate, black market or otherwise. A major problem to going down such a route is that an honourable way must be found to pay the holders of a country’s bonds, bills, Gilts or whatever other name applies to the facility extended to the investors. 

.

To emphasize the gravity of the problem facing the Euro I feel two events act as good indicators. The first is that a few weeks ago the American Federal Reserve stepped forward and put its shoulder to the wheel in support of the Euro. The second is that a few days ago Germany issued several billion Euros in short term Bonds earning a slightly “negative” rate of interest. Investors were prepared to lose a small amount of money rather than risk losing much more by leaving it wherever it was!!

Voters, political parties and candidates for election should be made very aware of  Tytler’s  profound observation regarding the effect of a loose fiscal policy as shown in paragraph eight of this article.

In my opinion countries/governments borrowing money from private investors is a farcical situation.  The method is used in most of the world and it will take firm and concerted action to break free from it.

Frederick W Gilling   Monday 16 January 2012. 

Posted as a blog at 17:20 hrs GMT on Tuesday 17 January 2012

 

Greek Politics

The last few weeks have been a perfect example for my contention that world democracies should search for a more democratic way of governing their countries. My first four blogs suggested Party Free Politics [PFP] is such a way. The first one of those blogs was dated 07/07/2009.

These four blogs were followed by three on the World Financial Armageddon, the first of those being dated 23/07/2009.

The first essential step towards PFP is that voters must be given the right to force the immediate resignation of "Their" MP.

The first essential step towards an acceptable new financial world order is for every country to immediately nationalise their own banks, this should have been done a century or more ago.

The "Occupiers" as per the example set in Wall Street should be listened to.  Surely it is glaringly obvious that drastic non violent changes are needed to promote transparency in world affairs and give people the feeling that they are in control, the alternative may well be more and more street rioting spawning more and more ways of attempting to control it.

Frederick W Gilling 00:20 AM GMT Monday 07 November 2011.

Catching Up.

I am astounded at the length of time that has passed since my last blog. I have been trying very hard to evoke more interest in some of the vital matters facing the world today, I think I have expressed my views on some of these matters and still feel that the World Financial Armageddon was the largest economic disaster to hit the world. It is ongoing and surely crunch time must be close.

The recent and also ongoing drama concerned with phone hacking was, and is, a truly wonderful example of ducking and weaving in regard to answering questions posed by and before MPs.

Who will be the judge as to which conversations between leading players were appropriate or inappropriate?

My two hobby horses, Party Free Politics and Nationalising Banks are still completely logical solutions attainable by persons with the will to support them, I pipe dream on.

Frederick W Gilling 19:30 hrs BST Monday 25 July 2011.

Welcome to readers.

Dear Reader,

Thank you sincerely if you have have accessed this site in response to info in a comment kindly published in The Telegraph on line. I have given my views on several different subjects starting with Politics One on 07/07/2009. Some how or other I feel it is vital that politicians throughout the world consult more closely with the voters who put them into power. I feel that the world is facing dangerous situations, across the board, that require a totally new approach so that they can be solved peacefully, any other way will surely be disastrous.

Frederick W Gilling 18:00 hrs GMT Tuesday 18 Jan 2011

KIT

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.