Highly recommended to a select few.

SP – Isn’t this the new it place to be seen in? (you know that this looks like jealousy from you)

Gyorgy Palfi’s grotesque tale of three generations of men, including an obese speed eater, an embalmer of gigantic cats, and a man who shoots fire out of his penis.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0410730/

Out of interest, have you seen the film Taxidermia? I think you described one of the main characters.

[Matthew, stop trying to pick up tories on the blog. SP]

Another guess, I couldn’t say for sure. Election or no, given every second story in the papers has been about food or petrol prices, and there’s a lot of hurt from interest rates, there would be a big incentive to act.

If price increases have reduced discretionary spending, tax cuts aren’t going to be as inflationary so I’d say it’s much better than even odds.

One big point though: I also think Labour are very smart operators, politically. If they wanted to give tax cuts purely for political gain, don’t you think they would have done so in the last budget, so by now we’d have had almost two months of fatter pay cheques? And perhaps another one to look forward to in April 2009 (they could have even brought that one forward to 1 Oct).

[lprent: I'm not sure - it always worrks works for me.]

I could just as equally say that he didn’t budget tax cuts because they weren’t needed and would have been inflationary.

Now, as inflation on inelastic consumption has eroded our purchasing ability, Cullen comes through with the goods.

Our two viewpoints have a lot in common Billy – they’re based upon assumptions, guesses and our opinion of the actors/agents involved.

There’s not a lot of fact to clearly prove you’re right and I’m wrong, or vice versa; we’re talking about motivations in the end.

To illustrate: Maybe, deep down, Cullen has been bursting at the seams (he is often bright red, to the point of vermillion, after all) to give us tax cuts, but conditions just weren’t right – and now he’s the happiest man in the land (deep down inside – on the outside he had to be somewhat begrudging to maintain the facade) because he’s had the excuse to do so.

Redlogix: shush, we’re Godless commies Social Democrats, you’ll confuse Billy by getting biblical…

And in the seven years of plenty Joseph as Pharoah’s chief minister could have cut taxes and allowed everyone to spend up large. He would have been most popular with the people.

And in consequence during the seven years of famine, the people would have starved… and the good times would have meant nothing. This ancient story from the Old Testament pre-dates Keyensian economics by some 5000 years, but the moral of the story remains the same… self-control and restraint may not be popular, but it is ultimately life-giving.

(Seeing as how we are indulging in history here…)

Here’s what I think. I think we could have afforded tax cuts in any of the years since 200. Cullen just didn’t want to give them because, being a socialist (or social democrat, if there is a difference) he doesn’t like tax cuts.

Now, politically and for no other reason, he has to give them, even though by the criteria he set the conditions are much less favourable than at any time at least since 2004.

munera accipit frequens, remittit nunquam

I think we’re experiencing those ‘future economic shocks’ to a small degree now – hugely increased prices have reduced spending, and enabled said tax cuts to occur. Given the change in the economic climate since 2005, it’s worng to hold what Cullen said in 2004 as relevant now. You seem to be taking Cullen’s comments ceteris paribus which is by no means the case.