A massive concentration of power in parliament is more preferable because they are answerable to us voters and we can get rid of them within five years – but we have no mechanism to get rid of the bankers.

Given the choice of these two evils – I’d still prefer parliament to have the massive concentration of power

The current system is riddled with corruption. The corruption is so ubiquitous and absolute, it is not just in the financial system but extends through to the political and legal system too.

Here’s some food for thought. How about the ‘favours’ (or perhaps outright kick backs) MP’s receive from the banking lobby for favourable legislation? Didn’t Tony Blair have a nice little job lined up at JP Morgan for when he left office? Ever thought about our courts, have you wondered how many judges have favourable “loans” (as reported in the USA) or wondered about cosy little executive directorships at the banks for judges or member of their families)? And what about the banks themselves. Why do you think the banks always win against the consumer? Ever wondered what those obscene bonus are really about – hush money perhaps, don’t want them to spill the beans about the criminal conduct that goes on in there – do they?

Objection on the grounds of potential corruption – what utter nonsense – does the proponent of such idiocy prefer that we continue to support the current corrupt system?.

The system is so absolutely corrupt now – there can be no serious objection that another system would allegedly lead to corruption.

The problem with the above claim is that in some peoples eyes this would be seen as perhaps “going too far” but it is perfectly possible.