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.
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)