Friday 29 March 2013

Easter Economics

I don't believe in Easter, that is to say I don't believe that the crucifixion of one man had any cosmic significance nor do I believe in 'the' resurrection afterwards. I don't actually believe that the Passion narrative is reliable. There is a point where reinterpretations and re-explanations simply give way to non-observance in any sense.

Nevertheless, there is only so much one can take of 'let's celebrate spring' all of which is a little delayed this year. Spring is not a hope but an angle of the globe against the sun, so yes it's OK to know where you are but let's not overdo it. We overdo it partly thanks to visiting preachers who replicate others.

The other 'tactic' is a kind of religious parallelism, where last Sunday the service taker, a minister, contrasted September 2001 in New York with her visit ten years on, and wove that into the spring theme. So you have devastating loss, but a rebirth that still takes into account that loss. More was made of it by reference to blue skies. But, I wonder, is it a theology of anything, or is it just observation that, after some nasty event, people just have to recover and move on. They don't forget but might forgive, and even those who don't forgive just have to move on for their own good.

For me, the Christian myth derives from that actuality, rather than treating the myth as primary (via which there is unique salvation). The reality is that the loss that happens in some events is real and cannot be glossed over, but there is a point where - the tragedy recognised - you do carry on.

In one sense the present economic troubles are continuing because there has not been a tragedy, a death, or a collapse. We still have liquid money bubbling about to try and avoid economic death. The government bailed out the banks and now banks are being used to bail out governments. Governments are using quantitative easing to hold a baseline insead of allowing money to flush out, basically to disappear. The danger is that once the economy does move we will hyperinflate. Nothing died, and without dying it can't resurrect. Also capitalism has died; if we do hyperinflate then if democracy has anything to do with it powers will be needed to direct economic activity after it continues to fail.

Recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced assistance to buy property, as if he wants a quick fix as of before: instead of allowing prices of property to fall, this will allow them to rise, and simply is an attempt to move money from the banks (where it is stuck) into purchases of property, that is the appearance of economic activity. But it isn't. It simply says I want inflation to be back in a property bubble, moved from a bank dormant bubble.

Evolution is itself based on death: the individual units die as the genes get stronger hosts; and really the economy had to die before it was allowed to recover. But great interests seem to have prevailed. We are left in a position where a resurrected economy won't be resurrected. It'll just be as it was, uncrucified. Yet, uncrucified, it is like a dying plant, but not dead, and cannot flourish, and somehow has to die first before it lives again. In other words, Cyprus and Greece are better off defaulting and starting again than this constant management to bob along the bottom with successive bailouts that go nowhere. No one is flushing the system clean.

Sunday 24 March 2013

Yorkshire (or a Fragment of) Comes to Hull

It was an all day job at the Yorkshire Unitarian Union meeting on Saturday, with examples of people who'd come a long way in the snow (Skipton) and those who didn't, and didn't come from relatively near either. A morning discussion on prayer in worship (though I did about impossible readings, however impressive the reading - I picked on the intellectual constipation of Catherine Pickstock who was writing about liturgy in my example. I was quite impressed with North Lincolnshire-living, Doncaster-attending, Jim's reworking and generalised Lord's Prayer, which he contrasted with a purist reworking of apparent original meaning. Jim Stearn and I clash, but contrary to common view I quite like his intensity and I genuinely thought he was on to something here, though I had a go at him for trying to find an enemy in a 'secular' humanist if no one else. What he did was try to retain the rhythm while extend the meaning to be inclusive and broader in scope.

Begetter of life in every creature,
In thy dimensionless domain,
Be thy revered and blessed teacher;
May thy harmonious peace obtain,
Right actions shape a better future
And our daily needs sustain.
From the poison of guilt may we be free
Through the power of mutual charity.
Guide us safely along thy ways,
Renew us, today and all our days.

Spirit of life, while our hearts unlearn
All the creeds that wrong Thy name
Still let our hallowed chalice burn
With our faith's undying flame.

The latter bit is a Unitarian identity tagged on, which actually can be used on its own.

Jim himself has managed to read all of James Martineau's The Seat of Authority, written in pure Victorian. This was towards an MA, and he was keen to show me that Martineau was a Kant individualist rather than a Hegel man. But, I asked, while agreeing, what if Martineau's actual result was a Hegel like progression? And for me this radical individualism (as the seat of authority) has to be combined with the Martineau the liturgist who employed an evolved behind-the-times more-beliefs-than-he-had collective liturgy that had the effect of crashing one into the other. You end up with a first postmodernism of this collective utterance while it's all individualist.

These days service takers almost write it from the beginning every time; indeed one old (rather good) publication on service taking said don't assume that because it is from a book that a prayer must be better than your own. And what of service books to reduce the effort - that they create copyright problems? This has been easily solved when I have produced them (as I have been) (also for emergency service taking) by simply writing everything yourself from scratch.

What I talked about was liturgical principles, going from one end of the service to the other, and the order involved as a kind of journey.

Jim mentioned to me something I'd not heard about, that if 20 start up what is that if 20 close? He was referring to an extended discussion at the more business meeting of the YUU in the afternoon. The scheme is 20-20 or such, and I'm one of those who'll look at it further. There is this new scheme of money gathering that, when it reaches £100,000 (as it nearly has), will start to deal in either nearly defunct or new congregations assuming a plan and demographics worked out, for substantial payments. But a district had made a big investment to this, on the basis that the £100,000 input (which it seems it must be) comes to its district. That seems to me to say that others in other districts that don't lay on such a restriction will end up subsidising those that invest a chunk that do lay on a restriction - but of course a lot of these funds do come with restrictions. And money isn't exactly the problem. As Jim also said to me, when you become a Unitarian you attach yourself to managing a lot of money. I just wonder about all this: for me, congregations grow as a result of social movements and our (market) relationship with other churches. Inclusion and identity matter now, and other churches have made a bad fist of this, and the Unitarians done rather well and known. So let's see if a number of congregations "bounce", which is when the clique in charge that held it back gives up, or genuinely new people come along and act as a seed for more that causes a congregation bobbing along the bottom to recover.

The 20-20 approach is one that brings into issue the question of planning your future, and what was once known (but never happened) as Development Ministry. The YUU has been considering having a YUU-wide minister, one that would train others in church ministry - a "bishop" as I put it.

We also discussed motions to the General Assembly, like the animals one that seemed like 'how can you oppose this?' when its specifics mean there is more to it, and plenty in the Assisted Dying motion for a Church position that may well not get the approval that might be assumed.

Wednesday 20 March 2013

Artwork in the Background

If you see this image on television in future, then it is my image reproduced for a television programme called The Smoke.

Hi Adrian,

Thank you so much for the use of your painting, we are planning on re-creating the image as a mural in a multi faith space within a set. We are going to be using the larger image of the picture on your website as a reference for the scenic painters to re-create. As it stands we should be alright for the high-res version or painting itself as the image we do have should work, thank you again for the use of your artwork,


Ant Noble Art Department The Smoke...

On Mar 19, 2013, at 14:44, tonia wrote:

Hi Ant

Please see below from Adrian. Do you want to pick up with him what would be the best way to send the image?


From: Adrian Worsfold [mailto:] Sent: 19 March 2013 14:41 To: tonia Subject: Re: FW: Request from the producers of a Tv Drama

Hello Tonia

Yes, this is my painting (painted by me) that hangs on my wall at home. It seems to me I can photograph it again, look for it already photographed (on a CD data disc somewhere, where I kept it higher resolution), or you can even collect the painting if you want for use.

Adrian Worsfold

Dear Adrian

Further to my call this afternoon please see the request below.

Kind regards

26 ... Road, ...
Email: Tonia@

From: tonia [mailto:] Sent: 07 March 2013 21:04 To: '' Subject: Request from the producers of a Tv Drama

Dear Adrian

I am writing on behalf of ... the producers of a new TV drama called "The Smoke" about a team at a London fire station. The series will focus on the repercussions for the watch when one member is seriously injured on a call out but it will also have lighter moments with the characters socialising both in and outside the station. The series will air on Sky TV later this year

The producers are keen to use an image that they found on you site (please see below) that would be seen in the background in a multi faith contemplation room in the station

I would be very grateful if you could advise me whether the producers have permission to feature in this drama, worldwide, on all media, in perpetuity and if you could supply a high resolution image..

Kind regards

Tonia ...
26 ... Road...
Email: Tonia@

Monday 18 March 2013

New Website Pages

I am paying more attention to my website. I'm passing on my tips for a fast use of the government's so-called Universal Jobsmatch website, which the registered unemployed are forced to use. In the world of tick box Kafkaesque realities, and being monitored, my method I suggest gets one through the bureaucratic corridors faster and protects your back.

With a friend in mind I created an /learning/business/marketinganalysis.html" target="_blank">online marketing advice page. The important point to remember, always, is that it's the sizzle and not the sausage that should be advertised.

I maintain my interest in liturgy and its principles, trying to apply them to a religious community that abandoned fixed liturgies long ago, but where ministers and others effectively write them over and over again. So far there are two main webpages and these are /liturgyculture.html" target="_blank">Liturgy and Culture and also Liturgy and Belief. How do these apply in a religious community that evolves its beliefs and promotes individual diversity of belief? The first upload of these recent pages was one on Liturgy and ceremonial process with its use of objects and colours. and As background I'd advise a reading of Duncan McGuffie's booklet.

Also I may scan through the blog to see what pages can form webpages and have a more fixed presentation.

The thing is, I'm not really interested in the new pope, even if the media keeps telling me he matters. He doesn't. Nor does the new Archbishop of Canterbury.

Wednesday 13 March 2013

Poor Old Chap Elected CEO

That was absolutely priceless. I was watching Channel 4 News and on came the new Pope, looking stunned, and so described by Jon Snow as a "poor old chap". I nearly fell off the settee in laughter. I was stunned if only because I cannot understand the people in the crowd who think this has any importance.

So he takes a new name, Francis, does someone whom Arkwright would call "Ber ber ber goglio, Granville," should he ever enter the corner shop.

He's seventy six already. Best of luck. If I get to 76 I'll be relatively pleased but I wouldn't want to become a Chief Executive Officer at that age. Whether he can clear out the scandals and the mess we shall have to see. Oh, and the Falkland Islanders weren't involved in his election.

Monday 11 March 2013

On-Going Creativity

At the moment I am putting some effort into new content in the website. The newest page, but intended to be one of a small series, is on liturgy and ceremonial, looking at principles of services involving something usually not seen in Unitarian circles - ceremonial features. But in there is a service structure as a framework for more or less of ceremonial. I am currently writing a page on liturgy and culture. These are in the Learning/ Religion pages.

The liturgy and ceremonial page projected me into writing a NoteTab clip so that I can produce text shadows of different colours. This is a text and HTML editor with clips that assist, but also take up time in construction. The main clipbooks I make are for HTML and Text Processing and these have been updated within the Learning/ ICT pages. They obviously relate to my computer so others would have to extract from them; in some cases I have not removed old website locations and the like. These are very frequently used. The processing clipbook includes how I assist myself searching for jobs and also in my voluntary activity in putting church music CDs together. As webpages in appearance they can be copied and entered into a clipbook via the Add from Clipboard feature in NoteTab itself.

I am resisting doing commentaries on the Anglican Church now; I'm not part of it and I only take an interest where it impacts on a more general population. It is clear that Justin Welby is of evangelical and charismatic origins; he is of a general 'the poor first' view although, apparently, his general stance supporting the recent bishops' letter against the cuts to welfare wasn't raised with Ian Duncan Smith, and he is a disappointment regarding gay inclusion (but no real surprise there surely). He has made a rod for his own back in starting a blog - albeit one with no responses allowed. I may do the odd fictional 'Church in England' entry, however.

The problem for politicians is when they start believing their own propaganda, so that the Liberal Democrats are milking the Eastleigh by-election for all that it can give and then start to think like their public narrative. Basically Nick Clegg is deluded: the loss of vote was consistent with national polls and will lead to huge losses especially in the north. They were lucky to stay in first position anyway. As for claims to social justice: not with the Bedroom Tax, mate, and your names are on it. The miserly 1% increase in benefits is lost simply via the new Council Tax demands being made, but the Bedroom Tax is utterly draconian and vicious and discriminatory. Marches are being organised; people are starting to react. You can't compromise with the Tories' hatred for the poor and 'undeserving' and this is what the Liberal Democrats have been doing, and no doubt will as the next Budget comes along.

Rather occasionally I am adding to a novel that has now got some volume (also via using Notetab). It is of a Church topic in a Lincolnshire seaside town of invented name and has duplicity at the heart of its adventures. It has a lead female character written in the first person, and she is a deacon to become a priest. She was accepted for training but only went forward after her husband did and was rejected. He ends up in a secular job that is about measuring the measurements (in ships etc.) and has an affair with an old school friend now at HQ in Harwich, which he visits. But the main character had a sexual encounter with her friend and two chaps, one now a private detective she meets again, used by the measurements firm to check its own integrity and she uses to expose her husband's affair. But she needs happy families to carry on through the priesting, and he is given his affair, and so she gets back with the now private detective and they look down the other two to resume their fun. They encounter duplicity through the clergy of all kinds and she herself is a complete liar when it comes to shove and push, plus she basically believes nothing in particular beyond the common narratives by which we understand reality. Her bishop and others are like government whips in the sense that they try to gather as much compromising information as they can on their staff to keep them putting on a public front. Unfortunately, she has fantasies about her own, though she and none of her colleagues like him and she is not sure if he is trying it on with her either. On top of all this about duplicity, the novel is rather explicit. I am not sure if any of the characters are to be redeemed in any sense, other than they are basically harmless types going through ordinary institutional life. It's just that they ought to put up a front. They are all good trinitarians and believe in heterosexual marriage. Except they are not and don't, in private practice. I include some sermons she makes that show how her extreme liberalism tries to look like more than it is, though few in the know are fooled. Her training vicar wants more but actually doesn't really care so long as she doesn't wreck his parish. The story has to have the four get together again, one of whom went off in personal guilt and also ended up being ordained (well to the north) and one who is purely secular (as indeed is the private detective). I'm trying to think how the charismatic one and she will argue, given that the charismatic one will herself not be what she seems. It's all good fun, but if I was more disciplined I'd write it more and faster.

Friday 8 March 2013

Forthcoming Economic Collapse

Friends and I were discussing the future of benefits this afternoon. The probable truth is, we don't know what is going to happen. So many are reliant on benefits just to survive, and marches are going to take place regarding the vicious and discriminatory 'Bedroom Tax'. Before reading the following, remember (for those who know) that I am a Europhile. The problem with the euro is a problem of inadequate regional policy, and a democratic deficit at the European Parliament whereas, instead, we have the executive arm of governments meeting up at the Council of Ministers producing a legislature at European level. The idea that Spain and Germany are radically different economically and culturally is so, but not so different from say the pound between London and Newcastle and the urge of the Scots or some of the Spanish to be independent and in the EU is as strong as say cultural differences around the continent. Nevertheless I think that shortly the UK could go bust and we will be out of the EU within ten years. Here is why. (Forget what the government says about employment and the rest. Firms take on cheap labour instead of investing in capital, and many people now work for less money than by which they can live. Every scheme, every sanction, every disability benefit, means the person is not counted as unemployed. People seeking work and partnered to workers are not counted as unemployed. The figures are fiddled. Also, forget what is says about the debt, for what matters is government deficit.) With its commitments, the deficit of the government is reaching about 900% of GDP. Our deficit is worse than all countries except Japan and Ireland. The government can afford the debt because the interest rate is so low. Should the interest rate rise to, say, 4%, the government would go bust. It could not finance the debt. One means by which the government is keeping interest rates low is by Quantitative Easing. Normally, a government sells bonds and the price falls so that they get purchased. As a bond gets cheaper - but its repayment value stays the same - the interest rate thus rises. The trick is that the Bank of England has been buying these bonds, and thus overpowered the price mechanism. Keeping prices high, interest rates have remained low. Now the Bank is not allowed to destroy the bonds or tell the government not to bother to pay it back. To do that would amount to printing money, and that is forbidden by the EU Maastricht Treaty. This time the bank has not done any Quantitative Easing. Though, there is now talk of negative interest rates for banks - forcing banks to pay for reserves they keep, as financed by QE. The idea is to force banks to pass on reserves by lending to business. Instead they have been repairing balance sheets. That's not the problem. You cannot push string. But once there is demand in the economy, there will be a difference between the real cost of buying money and the rates of interest in the banking system. Interest rates rising will fuel bond buying but rates will rise because of the demand for money. The problem is that there is a dam wall in the banks now holding back money. In old fashioned terms, we have had plenty of money in the system but not velocity of circulation. Once the velocity of circulation gets going the money could flood out of the banking system in a vicious circle. Interest rates will be up and down as money starts to pour out - expect inflation to rise, the interest rate rise to inflation, and then the money velocity to rise to inflation to draw on money volumes to push the interest rate down again to cause more pull on the money. Inflation will chase interest rates will chase inflation in a mad spiral of unbacked money. On the back of austerity - reduced production and formerly depressed prices - the result could soon be hyperinflation. If it doesn't seem right, or logical, watch the pound go down. That will be its measure. Instead of seeing gold and silver prices rising, see them as being flat and the currency falling. That change of perspective is a guideline for what has been going wrong. Probably there is worldwide general inflation ready to kick in, and, if you think about it, the property bubble was suppressed inflation, as were all those derivatives of insuring against the crash (you cannot - not a bell curve), as is worldwide Quantitative Easing just another bubble. We have one of the worst Chancellor's of the Exchequer ever; he is a boy doing a man's job and lacks economic insight. The IS LM curves of this economy now have a Keynesian shape, whereas he has been acting like a monetarist. The Japanese at least have had economic and infrastructure development during the last twenty years of their stagflation. We are having cuts, and cuts hitting those most likely to spend. Inflation on top of austerity is worse inflation: it is money backed by few goods and services. The spiral gets faster and faster. There is no answer to the forthcoming disaster without State power. So I'm making predictions. An economic collapse will cause social breakdown and the British won't stand for unfair austerity any further. We see these strains now in Greece, Italy and Spain. Despite it underpinning our liberties and leading towards a continental identity, the UK will probably be out of the European Union within ten years. The kind of Sovereign State power needed will not be possible inside the EU. Bonds will be scrapped and even privately held debts will be cancelled. The government will nationalise many financial institutions. The Greeks nationalised pensions and so will we. The banks went bust and governments bailed them out - so now governments go bust and the banks will bail them out, via bank takeovers. The State will have to direct people to work and direct consumption: private institutions like railways, power, water etc. will all come under public control, distributing to all. Housing will be taken over regarding repairs to the stock and much building and renting become the norm. What I am suggesting here is the collapse, probably in the UK and then in other countries, of the liberal capitalist economy and its 'civilisation' and its replacement by a more social system where rights and responsibilities will have to come through criticism in the political system. The choices will be between UKIP type nationalism and of the Conservative Party, and otherwise State and co-operative approaches of the left and communal left. Whoever is in power, the last market consensus will have to be dropped in favour of a State power consensus. Creditors will simply lose their money. They will be told to stuff it, and then creditors will start to lend again with adjusted interest rates. We all need a Jubilee like debt clearance. The United States will probably object, but the dollar itself is hugely over valued and the US is rather like the Roman Empire was. Although flexible in terms of change, it does not have a manufacturing base and won't without its own State power. Normally (!) the financial system collapses and there are a few years when the money supply vanishes, people go bankrupt and then the economy starts up again in real fashion. This time bail outs have kept money sloshing around. This unburst liquidity is now very dangerous. Let's hope the above does not happen. But any more austerity and it will happen. Governments must now exercise State power and act over and above the financial system. They must now direct projects to get people working and consuming, and direct the flows of finance. Let's be clear. Added value can and does happen in the public sector as well as the private sector. We now need this via investment; we need to understand what Keynes was getting at and that we are a community of people and not a set of individualist property owners. Yes to maximising liberty but yes also to use the levers of power.

Tuesday 5 March 2013

Hiding, Secrecy, Not Loving

Suppose you grow up and you come to a discovery that the almost rest of the world is different from you, so there are very few like you.

You wish you were like them, but for all the wishes in the world you cannot be like them.

Now there is an institution you can join that affirms that you are not to behave like them, so then you could be just like them (if only you were).

In order for you not to appear to behave like them, it has to be a disciplined organisation - even quite authoritarian. Or perhaps there is a dress code, one that illustrates your difference (and only has 'general exceptional acceptance' in your group, or in the imaginations of the theatre). Perhaps there is an often stated pattern of living that is more severe than all those people beyond.

As compensation, this organisation loves you, but in a different way, as you are yourself to use that way of love to express concern for all outside - that is, especially those you would be like, if only you could be.

From this institution of doing nothing, you can affirm the rest of the world in its ordinariness as not only ordinary but even as compulsory, and thus who you are as utterly wrong (and especially were you to be outside).

But the secrecy then gives another possibility.

Someone else, like you, has done the same. They have discovered they were not like almost everyone else. They joined the body that allowed them to be not like the rest, and not like as they were once were. The person affirms everything about the people 'out there' from their stance of being 'in here'.

However, on finding someone like him, in here, who is actually like yourself, you discover an attraction within yourself.

If he does for you, there can be a secret relationship. No one is harmed, except for the ideological duplicity in the messages of you two as you condemn those like yourselves.

If he doesn't reciprocate, and you have power when he needs your permissions, you might end up forcing him to act in ways he is trying to resist. His is trying to keep his behaviour consistent with his message, but now he is being compromised by you, as you are saying one thing and now can do another with him.

Of course it could be that you have the power, which he has recognised, and he wishes to reveal your own self to you, by way of using your power to acquire position himself.

Worse than these examples, the person you think is like you may actually be one of those vast numbers about whom you approve, as he obeys the same rules. So what, because in a position of power you force him into activity he both publically condemns and would not do himself.

Even worse, he is not of an age to know whether he is like you or not, but having the same plumbing and potential as you your desires are misdirected.

The institution operates with such secrecy that you can do this and not be seen doing it. Indeed, with the right appearances and the strong message, no one would suspect you of being like those you condemn.

Should you be discovered by some 'leakage' into the outside to be acting in variance to your and the institution's public message, the institution, operated by people who already understand your duplicity, will try to find a secret corner to place you, so that you can continue. They hope that the outside will lose its memory of you, until another leakage occurs. The institution needs to preserve its appearances at all cost.

The worst situation is when that institution has been rumbled. However, this is an opportunity. The question then is whether it can stop being secret, stop attacking people out there like you, and start being that 'love' for all that was the compensation you once felt offered to you.

Few really care if you want to dress differently (though this won't have 'general exceptional acceptance'). Good for you if you demand for yourself a severe ethic of living. Few care if you do have a difference in your relationships. Many do care that your messages match your method of living. They care that you have actual love for yourself, for another and for others - all of these. If you want to deny yourself so as to give time and space for others, then that should be by choice. There are no places to hide; only your behaviour. Secrecy should not be an option.

Otherwise, secrecy becomes a way also for people of any kind to abuse and be 'moved on'. Secrecy offers an attraction and opportunity to all sorts with behaviours to hide.

Pluralist Website

Friday 1 March 2013

From Eastleigh to Potential Economic Disaster

That the Liberal Democrats won will bear them up, though the reality is that they held on with a 14.5% drop in the vote nationally (to 32%, the lowest to win a by-election) and it would result in 42 seats nationally taken straight across. It matters because the -14.5% is consistent with the drop in their poll ratings to the 10% they maintain. My view is that in the north they will still be hammered. The Tories are also regarded as arrogant failures, -14% here (both had 19% swings to UKIP). Cameron spoke with forked tongue in India (more students as immigrants) and indeed today against capping bankers bonuses; and the drop recorded in immigration is a fiddle because it is based on reducing the student intake, easy to do, though meaning a drop in income for universities. UKIP came close to being first, and would have been other than for the postal vote, and though I don't care for what they stand for their candidate was far more coherent than the Liberal Democrat's. He praised Nick Clegg, whereas in what he didn't know and did know recently he demonstrated his ability to lie again.

Cameron is in trouble, but the one thing the Tories could do for power is sign a pre-election pact with UKIP to have an in-out referendum and act upon it for the next election. Without that the Tories won't win, and it is possible Labour will win but not with a majority. They'd be calling on the 42, but surely not Nick Clegg. If they had that, the Tories would split, because many would be in Europe if sceptical. It needs an out of Europe party to have a cast iron referendum. Surely Cameron is in trouble now, and if he is so is the coalition.

The Liberal Democrat gave a pathetic, written, badly presented speech as the winner, but on mentioning fairness someone shouted out, "What about the bedroom tax?" Quite so. This is why the Liberal Democrats are down 14.5%, because they went into the election with a manifesto and then stood on their heads and even loved aspects of their governance with the Tories. They lied, and misled.

On BBC 1 Question Time the filmaker Ken Loach said something significant. He said UKIP are a renewing party from the right, and what is needed is a renewing party from the left. At one time the Liberal Democrats were that, but they ruined it via the Orange Group being in the leadership and finding such bedfellows with the Tories. They've ruined it. But a win may well prevent a complete meltdown in the future.

The policies aren't working. What people don't realise is the danger we face of hyperinflation. We have a situation now where the loss of the AAA rating could affect bond prices downwards, though the Bank of England by buying government bonds is keeping the prices up/ interest rates down and passing money into the banking system. The money is parked, as the banks have sat on it, but if the economy inflates to get itself moving, the money parked could become a flood all at once and some activity and a small inflation become hyperinflation. We've had suppressed inflation for a long time now - in property, and that bubble burst, in credit and that has been pulled back, and now in the financial instruments at bank level. Austerity doesn't work, because it rams the brakes on and causes less production and less ability to handle sudden movements in money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is utterly cluesless, a boy from privilege doing a man's job, and Cameron is a PR man also over-promoted. The biggest mistake of the Liberal Democrats is to have ever had anything to do with these people; the so-called stability of government should have been measured from the beginning and not the road ahead.

For in the short term the bedroom tax and other benefit losses will massively deflate the economy; there are people either underemployed or doing workfare yet counted as employed (the figures are just fiddled - like with immigration), and there are now coming huge job losses from local authorities. This could combine with money moving that leads to an inflationary burst, and the shit we could be in soon just doesn't bear thinking about.

In 1990 communism collapsed and the fact is that in 2010 capitalism largely collapsed. It collapsed because it all went east and the west consumed on the credit. But we now have monetary policies that feed the banks, governments effectively going bust instead, and the money policies could result in chaos.

What we need soon is a combination of State power with economic direction, with spending and State provision, strengthening of individual rights and financial redistribution, and declarations that debt is ended (rather in the Jubilee sense) with creditors having to take it on the chin. Yes, they might be reluctant to lend again, but they will and at real rates of interest. There's a lot of starting again necessary.

Pluralist Website