As the UK public is going to cast their votes at polling stations around the country, there has been, as in previous general elections, much talk of a "hung parliament" or the fear of the two main parties that neither of them might manage to get an absolute majority in spite of the unique British "first-past-the-post" electoral system usually resulting in a sizable majority for a party who only has a minority backing amongst the population. This whole discussion misses the crucial point that neither of the parties potentially forming a government after today will have a popular mandate, because they are not bound to listen to the voice of the people, but rather carry out the policies of their paymasters, the banks.
Each of the parties contesting the current UK elections have already made it clear that there will be "cuts" in spending, "austerity" measures in order to pay back the large deficit amassed by bailing out the banks whose profiteering charges were in the past justified by the suggestion that they took a commercial risk when lending. Instead, it is the people who take the risk and the people who pay the price.
None of the parties have dared looking at alternatives to the current madness, because questioning the supremacy of private banks as the originators of the nation's money supply is heresy. Hence it will not make an iota of difference who gets elected today.
Only a year ago we had the bizarre scenario that we were told that the banks did no longer have the funds to lend money, therefore governments had to bail them out by lending the money to them, but in order to do so, they first had to raise those funds on the money markets, in other words, obtain them from those same banks that didn't have the funds in the first place. The real problem is that governments do not supply the currency they issue, but borrow the money they put into circulation from private banks, who in turn have been given the right to issue those loans without any material backing - out of thin air as it were - and then charge for it. In this crazy system of fractional reserve banking, banks are allowed to issue a multiple of their asset base in credits, that is lend money that they do not have nor doesn't in fact exist, and charge for the privilege. Yet, governments are denied to put money into circulation by the same means, clearly indicating that we are governed by banks, not governments.
Were our governments to issue the necessary credit directly into circulation, saving the high cost of interest on borrowing, there would be no need for cuts and austerity measures. This argument has been put to the treasury countless times, and the replies and excuses have been as ingenious as that there was "not enough demand" for this kind of government-issued money (known to economists as M0), or that the Maastricht treaty prevented European governments from doing so.
Hence, the best course of action for troubled countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and sooner or later the UK would be to leave the Euro and the restraints imposed by the European Union, issue their own interest-free currency to facilitate trade and prosperity, and preventing banks from continually creaming off the lion's share of our tax payments. Don't bother voting for UKIP as an alternative though, or the SNP, they're no more wanting to upset the status quo than the rest. When it comes to political parties and their MPs, they're all in the pocket of the bankers. A hung parliament wouldn't be too bad, provided they hang them all properly.