For the first time in two generations, our economy has turned into one of negative inflation.
Who could have guessed that five years of under investment in public services and widespread austerity would result in deflation?
I'd love to see how you link temporary deflation to so-called austerity - perhaps you could explain? Meanwhile the ONS says "the biggest contribution to the fall came from a drop in air and sea fares"....
Anyway, back in the real world, bbc.co.uk/news/business-32789709 the wrong answer to the EU referendum will lead to a "last one out turn off the lights" scenario I fear.
I've heard speculation that the EU referendum might be next May to coincide with Scotland and London election - at least that way we won't have "years of speculation"
In answer to your question about deflation, I understand the causes are twofold. Firstly benign causes like the fall in the oil price and secondly the absence of growth and demand.
Someone recently suggested that the underlying rate, stripping out oil prices, was 0.8% which is a fair bit below the 2% target. Nobody wants a return to inflation above 4% which causes a wage spiral but it's fairly clear that there's more room for government investment to take advantage of low interest rates and low inflation.
For the first time in two generations, our economy has turned into one of negative inflation.
Who could have guessed that five years of under investment in public services and widespread austerity would result in deflation?
I'd love to see how you link temporary deflation to so-called austerity - perhaps you could explain? Meanwhile the ONS says "the biggest contribution to the fall came from a drop in air and sea fares"....
Anyway, back in the real world, bbc.co.uk/news/business-32789709 the wrong answer to the EU referendum will lead to a "last one out turn off the lights" scenario I fear.
I've heard speculation that the EU referendum might be next May to coincide with Scotland and London election - at least that way we won't have "years of speculation"
In answer to your question about deflation, I understand the causes are twofold. Firstly benign causes like the fall in the oil price and secondly the absence of growth and demand.
Someone recently suggested that the underlying rate, stripping out oil prices, was 0.8% which is a fair bit below the 2% target. Nobody wants a return to inflation above 4% which causes a wage spiral but it's fairly clear that there's more room for government investment to take advantage of low interest rates and low inflation.
I know it's been de-designated (you can blame the ONS for that little bit of English!) but personally I still see RPI as being a better measure. The latest RPI figure was +0.9% and may help to explain why people don't see deflation in the real world.
The Queen's speech included a bill to apply a blanket ban on legal highs. Was that in the Tories' - or any other parties' - manifesto?
Is this thread really still grinding on? Oh well.... surely it is not possible to ban a "legal high". The high becomes illegal. Seems simple really. A bit like tax avoidance: if you could define it properly you could make it illegal - problem solved.
Half the problem is how they are marketed though. It isn't illegal to sell certain things as plant food or something equally innocuous. You can't really stop teenagers cheesing their balls off some baby bio.
The Queen's speech included a bill to apply a blanket ban on legal highs. Was that in the Tories' - or any other parties' - manifesto?
I presume that won't include expensive brandy, champagne or Port ?
Is there such a thing as expensive "brandy"? My Hennessy XO says "Cognac" on the bottle - the b word is not mentioned dontcha know. That's something you see on cheapo stuff like Three Barrels.
Now the media are losing interest in them because their vote counts for diddly squat, they need something to keep em in the limelight so why not kick off over where to sit?
The Queen's speech included a bill to apply a blanket ban on legal highs. Was that in the Tories' - or any other parties' - manifesto?
The proposal was included in the Conservatives' general election manifesto.
Looks like it was in the Labour manifesto, but not the Tories'. Very peculiar then to see it make it in the first Queen's Speech of the current Parliament...
It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
Now, some people might think that's a good idea. I can't for the life of me think why, but some people might.
But not everyone is a fan of the idea. Carwyn Jones, the leader of the Welsh Assembly has said that scrapping the Human Rights Act "makes us look like a banana republic". The Scottish Parliament has said it will withhold legislative consent on scrapping the Act. And, as you can see in this letter (below) scrapping the Act will put us in breach of the UK-Republic of Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
So, well done Tories. So far you're doing a great job "bringing the country together".
"Withdrawal is not going to happen. Michael Gove and Theresa May think it's the only solution but David Cameron's clear this is off the table"
Thank goodness, Cameron has U-turned and has, quite rightly, ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. And, although there's now a major split in the Cabinet - less than a month since assuming office - it appears we are in less danger of looking like a petulant banana republic and exiting the Convention.
Although - naturally - we're now in a phase of utterly muddled thinking. Cameron now wants to remain a signatory to the Convention, yet scrap the Human Rights Act which incorporates the Convention into British Law.
The Cabinet is going to be an interesting place for the remainder of Cameron's tenure. Squabbling between the PM on one side and Theresa May and Michael Gove on the other is unedifying, although hilarious. I suspect there will be a lot more to come.
The Queen's speech included a bill to apply a blanket ban on legal highs. Was that in the Tories' - or any other parties' - manifesto?
The proposal was included in the Conservatives' general election manifesto.
Looks like it was in the Labour manifesto, but not the Tories'. Very peculiar then to see it make it in the first Queen's Speech of the current Parliament...
The Queen's speech included a bill to apply a blanket ban on legal highs. Was that in the Tories' - or any other parties' - manifesto?
The proposal was included in the Conservatives' general election manifesto.
Looks like it was in the Labour manifesto, but not the Tories'. Very peculiar then to see it make it in the first Queen's Speech of the current Parliament...
Who in their right mind would want to ban dangerous, life threatening drugs.
Damn those nasty Tories.
I don't think anyone's suggesting it's a bad idea. (Apart from the unintended consequences of limiting research into new drugs in case of falling foul of new laws). The point was that it seemed unusual that one item that was in Labour's manifesto has been adopted immediately, despite it not being in the winning party's manifesto.
I didn't want to raise this on the Charles Kennedy thread because it really isn't the right place for it but some politicians give politicians a bad name without even trying. And Charles Kennedy wasn't one of them:
Page 57 makes for entertaining reading now that Wikipedia, after a formal investigation, has revoked admin privileges from the admin who went to the press about Shapps misusing Wikipedia, and after an audit could find no evidence linking the edits to Shapps or his staff.
Still, guess it was a good story for those who wanted to believe it with no real evidence. I can't wait for the Guardian to add to their corrections and clarifications on this.
Page 57 makes for entertaining reading now that Wikipedia, after a formal investigation, has revoked admin privileges from the admin who went to the press about Shapps misusing Wikipedia, and after an audit could find no evidence linking the edits to Shapps or his staff.
Still, guess it was a good story for those who wanted to believe it with no real evidence. I can't wait for the Guardian to add to their corrections and clarifications on this.
If all newspapers had to publish corrections and clarifications whenever one of their stories was found to be a pack of lies supporting their own agenda the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph would never have room to print anything else!
Page 57 makes for entertaining reading now that Wikipedia, after a formal investigation, has revoked admin privileges from the admin who went to the press about Shapps misusing Wikipedia, and after an audit could find no evidence linking the edits to Shapps or his staff.
Still, guess it was a good story for those who wanted to believe it with no real evidence. I can't wait for the Guardian to add to their corrections and clarifications on this.
If all newspapers had to publish corrections and clarifications whenever one of their stories was found to be a pack of lies supporting their own agenda the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph would never have room to print anything else!
Yeah but when you read this post out loud you realise that isn't actually true and it is actually a really stupid thing to post as a serious statement.
Page 57 makes for entertaining reading now that Wikipedia, after a formal investigation, has revoked admin privileges from the admin who went to the press about Shapps misusing Wikipedia, and after an audit could find no evidence linking the edits to Shapps or his staff.
Still, guess it was a good story for those who wanted to believe it with no real evidence. I can't wait for the Guardian to add to their corrections and clarifications on this.
If all newspapers had to publish corrections and clarifications whenever one of their stories was found to be a pack of lies supporting their own agenda the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph would never have room to print anything else!
Yeah but when you read this post out loud you realise that isn't actually true and it is actually a really stupid thing to post as a serious statement.
That is exactly what I think about practically every single post you make!
Interesting how days before the election and up to the election it was extensively reported in the press that Cameron already had a great deal lined up with Europe. This week, we are seeing that he had nothing of the sort. Not that I ever believed we did. I wish him all the best now – I really do though.
Comments
In answer to your question about deflation, I understand the causes are twofold. Firstly benign causes like the fall in the oil price and secondly the absence of growth and demand.
Someone recently suggested that the underlying rate, stripping out oil prices, was 0.8% which is a fair bit below the 2% target. Nobody wants a return to inflation above 4% which causes a wage spiral but it's fairly clear that there's more room for government investment to take advantage of low interest rates and low inflation.
Also, who was the SNP geezer with Huw Edwards on the BBC, claiming that the SNP are now the main opposition party? Pmsl
So that means he joins the illustrious club of Labour MPs who have managed to stop the SNP from taking their seat...currently a club of 2.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/uk-general-election-2015-where-parties-stand-drug-policy
Thank goodness, Cameron has U-turned and has, quite rightly, ruled out withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights. And, although there's now a major split in the Cabinet - less than a month since assuming office - it appears we are in less danger of looking like a petulant banana republic and exiting the Convention.
Although - naturally - we're now in a phase of utterly muddled thinking. Cameron now wants to remain a signatory to the Convention, yet scrap the Human Rights Act which incorporates the Convention into British Law.
The Cabinet is going to be an interesting place for the remainder of Cameron's tenure. Squabbling between the PM on one side and Theresa May and Michael Gove on the other is unedifying, although hilarious. I suspect there will be a lot more to come.
Damn those nasty Tories.
huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/02/charles-kennedy-alex-salmond-snp-better-together-scottish-indepenedence-referendum_n_7491070.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet_investigation_block/Proposed_decision#Chase_me_ladies.2C_I.27m_the_Cavalry:_Statements_about_the_operator_of_the_Contribsx_account
Still, guess it was a good story for those who wanted to believe it with no real evidence. I can't wait for the Guardian to add to their corrections and clarifications on this.
(love the arg alert thread)