Bolitics The New Condem Government

[blandy]

I strongly dislike about 85% of what the Gov't is doing, Ian, perhaps more than that, but I have to say that none of them have said "it's OK" and also that all the crap hasn't suddently happened as a result of what just they have done (though they're largely making things worse).

[Awol]

Inflation is running high because we've printed a shitload of money and the BoE have held interest rates artificially low. Throw in rising commodity prices, VAT and a poorly performing economy and you get stagflation.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - cut income and corporation tax ASAP to get growth going.

[LondonLax]

Inflation is running high because we've printed a shitload of money and the BoE have held interest rates artificially low.

Well if that were the case it would be our extra spending power that is causing inflation. I don't think the populous spending loads of cheap money is actually happening or the reason for the inflation rate.

Throw in rising commodity prices, VAT and a poorly performing economy and you get stagflation.

This is a better explanation for the inflation rate. The cost of oil and imports plus extra duties as well as a hike in VAT two years in a row.

[Gringo]

Inflation is running high because we've printed a shitload of money and the BoE have held interest rates artificially low.

Well if that were the case it would be our extra spending power that is causing inflation. I don't think the populous spending loads of cheap money is actually happening or the reason for the inflation rate.

Not populous spending as well know that all that cheap money went straight to the banks who used it lend to small business, sorry I meant to shore up their balance sheets. The resulting devaluation of sterling is an important factor in the increase in inflation.

[Awol]

Inflation is running high because we've printed a shitload of money and the BoE have held interest rates artificially low.

Well if that were the case it would be our extra spending power that is causing inflation. I don't think the populous spending loads of cheap money is actually happening or the reason for the inflation rate.

The £ is simply a unit that measures the value of the UK economy. When the strength of that economy is falling yet the BoE prints billions more £'s the real value of those units falls - hence inflation. Add a supply shock like rising oil prices which slows the economy down further, extra tax rises (VAT) and the combination of all those elements gives you stagflation.

That's my understanding anyway.

[snowychap]

The resulting devaluation of sterling is an important factor in the increase in inflation.

In order to be an explanation for the difference in prices between January 2010 and January 2011, wouldn't there need to have been a devaluation in that period?

[blandy]

Just nipped outside my Hangar, and there's large mechanical two diggers fitted with big claws setting about a Nimrod. it's taken 3 and a half hours to turn it into a heap of metal. Just the last bit of front fuse left to be mangled. What a waste.

[drat01]

PMQ showing up Cameron again. The man answers no question, other than those pre-arranged from within his own party.

Total deflect from key questions, smarmy rather than leader like.

[peterms]

Inflation is running high because we've printed a shitload of money and the BoE have held interest rates artificially low.

Well if that were the case it would be our extra spending power that is causing inflation. I don't think the populous spending loads of cheap money is actually happening or the reason for the inflation rate.

The £ is simply a unit that measures the value of the UK economy. When the strength of that economy is falling yet the BoE prints billions more £'s the real value of those units falls - hence inflation. Add a supply shock like rising oil prices which slows the economy down further, extra tax rises (VAT) and the combination of all those elements gives you stagflation.

That's my understanding anyway.

The BoE prints about 3% of the money in our economy.

The rest is created, out of literally nothing, by private banks. They don't have assets to back the credit they advance, and they never did. It's what in other circumstances the law recognises as fraud.

This is what is at the root of what is wrong with the economy. It's not public debt but private debt that is the problem. It's not the creation of money by the BoE we should worry about, but the creation of money by private banks.

And when they lend credit which turns into bad debts, because the product has been deliberately disguised and packaged and concealed and distorted so that it is impossible to understand it or price it; when we pick up the bill for their losses; and when the means of financing the deficit which thereby appears in the national accounts becomes the destruction of jobs, community facilities, even assets like Nimrods, then it's plain to see that we have gone utterly, barking mad.

[peterms]

The populace. Populous is an adjective. And Papadopoulos was a Greek dictator.

[Gringo]

The resulting devaluation of sterling is an important factor in the increase in inflation.

In order to be an explanation for the difference in prices between January 2010 and January 2011, wouldn't there need to have been a devaluation in that period?

Good point. A lot of companies spent end 2008 through 2009 reducing stock levels. it has only the restocking and the economic growth that has brought this factor more into play now. For example it was not until Q3 2010 that imports returned to the same level they had been early 2008.

[snowychap]

Good point. A lot of companies spent end 2008 through 2009 reducing stock levels. it has only the restocking and the economic growth that has brought this factor more into play now. For example it was not until Q3 2010 that imports returned to the same level they had been early 2008.

The volume/gross value of imports isn't going to have that much effect upon the price indices, though, is it?

I can understand the idea about stock levels for manufacturing and the like but for consumables/commodities that wouldn't really apply, would it?

[snowychap]

And Papadopoulos was a Greek dictator.

I thought he ran the Bridge St launderette?

[peterms]

So I see they are going to abandon the forestry sell-off.

"The consultation is going to be terminated," a government source has said. A No 10 insider added: "It's a cock-up. We just did not think."

Of how many other polices could the same assessment be made?

They really are utterly, completely, out of their depth. They don't have the first clue about what to do or how to do it. Except that bending to the lobbying demands of their mates and their mates' mates is generally the way to go.

[peterms]

And Jabba the Hut makes another cock-up.

[peterms]

Oh, here's another one.

Alcohol policy in tatters as health experts revolt

[peterms]

And here's the libdems starting to feel a little aggrieved at their tory masters.

Richard Leese, Labour leader of Manchester city council

The spending cuts facing local authorities under the coalition government are unprecedented and unjustifiable.

I was first elected to Manchester city council in 1984. Since then I have seen many difficult times, from budget cuts to the aftermath of the 1996 IRA bomb. But nothing has been as difficult or painful as dealing with the deepest government spending cuts this city has ever had to face.

We always knew cuts were coming. Manchester city council has made £55m of efficiency savings over the past two years. We were planning to make a further £96m of savings over the next two years. Overnight, the government transformed that tough but deliverable efficiency programme into cuts of £109m this year and £170m next – 25% of our budget.

And far from getting a "fair" share of cuts, Manchester – one of the most deprived council areas in the country – received one of the five worst grant settlements, with £30m being taken from us and given to more affluent areas.

We've been open about all of this and told the cold, unvarnished truth. It's no surprise, therefore, we've been subject to an unprecedented onslaught from government ministers and the rightwing press.

Some of this has been ridiculous, such as nonexistent Twitter tsars and pigeon fanciers' booklets being translated into Urdu (the truth was we produced a flyer for an area where pigeons were causing hygiene problems and the local residents primarily spoke Urdu. The flyer asked people not to feed the pigeons).

But many of the attacks have been much more nefarious, feeding into a narrative that presents local government as wasteful, staffed by workshy employees with their snouts in the trough. Local government is the most efficient part of the public sector and here in Manchester the staff are among the most hardworking people I have ever met, with a genuine passion and commitment for this great city.

Ministers attempt to claim that councils don't have to cut frontline services and pretend that a few efficiencies and a few pounds shaved off chief executive salaries will get us by.

This position is refuted by, among others, the Tory chair and Lib Dem group leader of the Local Government Association. The reality is Manchester's story is being repeated up and down the country in councils of every political complexion.

The claim made by government that our position is politically motivated is a pure example of doublespeak. If there is any political motivation, it is of the coalition cutting too fast, too deep with local services having to bear the brunt.

Manchester people are understandably anger. It's an anger I share. But at the same time, Manchester people now have the economic and social resilience to survive this government onslaught and come out of it stronger

[snowychap]

From your link: I believe that Mr Barrow is an incredibly dodgy character. ;-)

[Awol]

So I see they are going to abandon the forestry sell-off.

Good news. Better that they recognise when they've got policy wrong and act than carry on regardless.

[TrentVilla]

So I see they are going to abandon the forestry sell-off.

Good news. Better that they recognise when they've got policy wrong and act than carry on regardless.

True although I don't think its so much a case of they have had an epiphany and suddenly changed their minds, given the opportunity they would still do it they have only backed away from it because of the strength of feeling against it.

So less a case of them realising they got it wrong and more a case of realising they couldn't get away with it.

Nonetheless as you say good news.