OneGuyFromBarlick

Ed Ball's car crash interview with Brillo on Daily Politics & then the same with Adam Boulton.

The fact that weird Ed never left a glove on Cameroon yesterday, although he tried

Danny Alexander had another woeful interview on #WATO

How can they all make Cameroon look like a superstar?

Latest growth figures produced some strange responses from Downing Street and in the media. Everyone is desperate to avoid Norman Lamont's "Green shoots" trap but they can't help themselves. Phrases like "The UK has come out of Recession". Nonsense of course, funny how when GDP figures are worse they are rubbished as an imperfect estimate but no mention of this when they show an improvement. Far too early to draw any conclusions. Best quote I heard was a lady in Holmfirth "Haven't noticed it here!".
Here's something that might interest you. A US article on Mitt Romney's economic policies. It's a different view of what we are doing over here.

Romney’s Economic Model
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Mitt Romney’s best argument on the campaign trail has been simple: Under President Obama, the American economy has remained excruciatingly weak, far underperforming the White House’s own projections.

That’s a fair criticism.

But Obama’s best response could be this: If you want to see how Romney’s economic policies would work out, take a look at Europe. And weep.

In the last few years, Germany and Britain, in particular, have implemented precisely the policies that Romney favors, and they have been richly praised by Republicans here as a result. Yet these days those economies seem, to use a German technical term, kaput.

Is Europe a fair comparison? Well, Republicans seem to think so, because they came up with it. In the last few years, they’ve repeatedly cited Republican-style austerity in places like Germany and Britain as a model for America.

Let’s dial back the time machine and listen up:

“Europe is already setting an example for the U.S.,” Representative Kenny Marchant, a Texas Republican, said in 2010. (You know things are bad when a Texas Republican is calling for Americans to study at the feet of those socialist Europeans.)

The same year, Karl Rove praised European austerity as a model for America and approvingly quoted the leader of the European Central Bank as saying: “The idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect.”

Representative Steve King of Iowa, another Republican, praised Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany for preaching austerity and said: “It ought to hit home to our president of the United States. It ought to hit all of us here in this country.”

“The president should learn a lesson from the ‘German Miracle,’ ” Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina, a Republican, urged on the House floor in July 2011.

Also in 2011, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, denounced Obama’s economic management and said: “We need a budget with a bold vision — like those unveiled in Britain and New Jersey.”

O.K. Let’s see how that’s working out.

New Jersey isn’t overseas, but since Sessions and many other Republicans have hailed it as a shining model of austerity, let’s start there. New Jersey ranked 47th in economic growth last year. When Gov. Chris Christie took office in 2010 and began to impose austerity measures, New Jersey ranked 35th in its unemployment rate; now it ranks 48th.

Senator Sessions, do we really aspire for the same in America as a whole?

Something similar has happened internationally. The International Monetary Fund this month downgraded its estimates for global economic growth, with only one major bright spot in the West. That would be the United States, expected to grow a bit more than 2 percent this year and next.

In contrast, Europe’s economy is expected to shrink this year and have negligible growth next year. The I.M.F. projects that Germany will grow less than 1 percent this year and next, while Britain’s economy is contracting this year.

Karl Rove, that sounds a lot like stagnation to me.

All this is exactly what economic textbooks predicted. Since Keynes, it’s been understood that, in a downturn, governments should go into deficit to stimulate demand; that’s how we got out of the Great Depression. And recent European data and I.M.F. analyses underscore that austerity in the middle of a downturn not only doesn’t help but leads to even higher ratios of debt to economic output.

So, yes, Republicans have a legitimate point about the long-term need to curb deficits and entitlement growth. But, no, it isn’t reasonable for Republicans to advocate austerity in the middle of a downturn. On that, they’re empirically wrong.

If there were still doubt about this, we’ve had a lovely natural experiment in the last few years, as the Republicans in previous years were happy to point out. All industrialized countries experienced similar slowdowns, and the United States under Obama chose a massive stimulus while Germany and Britain chose Republican-endorsed austerity.

Neither approach worked brilliantly. Obama’s initial economic stimulus created at least 1.4 million jobs, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. But that wasn’t enough, and it was partly negated by austerity in state and local governments.

Still, America’s economy is now the fastest growing among major countries in the West, and Britain’s is shrinking. Which would you prefer?

I’m not suggesting Obama distribute bumper stickers saying: “It Could Be Worse.” He might want to stick with: “Osama’s Dead and G.M. Is Alive.”

Yes, there are differences between Europe and America. But Republicans were right to call attention to this empirical experiment.

The results are in. And, as Representative King suggested, the lessons “ought to hit all of us here in this country.”

Schools Minister Mr Laws has suggested many teachers are failing in their responsibilities by not encouraging their pupils to 'aim for the stars', with the result that many pupils see places at the 'better' Universities and careers in 'law, journalism and investment banking' as beyond them. One wonders what his evidence base is for this assertion (and it's impact, if it exists, set alongside other compounding factors) as in the absence of one it's simply made-up rubbish spouted for reasons known only to himself. The good Minister is of course, no stranger to making things up weaving as he did a whole web of fantasy in order to trouser monies he wasn't entitled to. May I suggest a period of silence would be welcome on his part when it comes to 'responsibilities'? The man has no credibility whatsover and a walking example as to just how far standards have dropped at Westminster.

Richard Broughton

Wonderful stuff as usual Richard! I agree entirely. Problem is that the same could be said for so many of our 'leaders'. Another prime example is Jeremy Hunt lecturing women on abortion. Now let me see, what's his track history in that field.....?

It's also interesting where, having been encouraged to 'reach for the stars', Mr Laws imagines you ending up: journalism, investment banking, and the law. I pass no comment on the merits of those employment sectors. Rather I note the absence of, to name simply a few, engineering (and not just graduate level - my dad was a time-served die-sinker with a knowledge and skill level I could only dream of and in a million years never emulate), hairdressing, scientific research, catering, public service, retail and I suppose for the sake of effect, let us add add teaching. It's not just a logic fail to equate aspiration with some off-the-cuff examples of 'glittering' career options, it damns whole cohorts with the mark of failure. Did not my father 'reach for the stars' too and be the best engineer he could be?

Richard Broughton

The desirability of the 'stars' seems to be in direct correlation with salary levels. It says something about the peculiarities of my memory and the power of radio that I can remember a programme in the late 1940s in which people at various pay levels were interviewed and asked about satisfaction. The lowest paid man was a platelayer on the railway and he was the only one who said he was perfectly satisfied. I spent the greater part of my working life on low pay, long hours and hard, dirty work. I can't ever remember not enjoying starting a new day. Perhaps I've been lucky but my belief is that my satisfaction stemmed from the fact that I was doing my job well and providing for my family. Funnily enough, the harder it got, the more satisfied I became because I was prevailing against the odds. Problem is of course that this sort of advice coming from a highly paid person with high 'net worth' would not go down very well with the electors! The focus is on high achievers when it should be on getting all school-leavers into properly paid work immediately after they leave education. I have argued all my life for this to be the target and for more investment in primary education. If we get that right, the higher education will look after itself.
Meanwhile, in Europe, the consensus has definitely changed on Greece. It now seems to be accepted that a Greek default would harm the Eurozone more than the costs of a bail-out. Problem is that there is no agreement in Greece on even harder austerity measures. I can understand their thinking but it seems to me that they are trying to sweep water uphill. The fundamental problem hasn't changed and if political manoeuvring staves off default it will be an artificial settlement funded by even more debt and one has to ask what the effects will be in the long term. The problem with the Mediterranean countries is essentially the same one that we face in the UK. The only economically sound way out of the impasse is to get the value adding industries working again, making 'real money' and paying down historical debt. This involves a measure of austerity but not to the point where it damages the economic base of the country. I doubt if I'll live to see a resolution of this.
America has a good GDP figure like us in the UK. Question is, how sound is the recovery and how can it be sustained. One swallow doesn't make a summer and I have an awful feeling that this is a false dawn.

There is great deal of truth in that Stanley. I also have had a career that for the most part I enjoyed, and every day was different. I started at the bottom and worked my way up, as an apprentice the pay was low, someone of the same age working in a factory would take home over twice what I was getting and in the evenings when we were waiting for the bus to go to night school, they would be out with their mates. A social life for an apprentice was almost non existent, but we had to put up with it or fail. There is a culture today of wanting to start at least half way to the top, and getting a bit dirty in the process is out of the question, add to that a high level of impatience and it is no small wonder that toleration of others has hit an all time low. When I look at the daily "rush hours" I see a colony of undisciplined ants! Recently in conversation with a local aerospace engineer he alluded that his level of skills was greater than mine, I pointed out that whereas he only made parts of things, I used to manufacture the entire product.

I see Italy is in the news again. Berlusconi has lost his temper and is lashing out following his conviction as a fraudster. He has threatened to use 'his party' to bring down the technocrat government and reform the justice system. Not too sure whether this isn't just a symptom of his immense ego. Will anyone take any notice of him?

Deathly hush in Downing Street. I wonder what they are doing?
Over in the States hurricane Sandy could be the game-changer in the Presidential Election. Obama cuts short campaigning and goes back to Washington to oversee government reaction to 'Frankenstorm'. Memories of Bush's inaction on Katrina and I have no doubt that this time Obama will not make the same mistake. He has the opportunity to show how an event like this should be addressed. Could be the legendary 'October Event' that has swung elections in the past.

A friend in Florida just got wet by Sandy, he said it was a bit blowy but he still walked the dogs

I see John Hayes, the energy minister, has pronounced on wind turbines. He has form on these, describing them as a terrible intrusion on communities and saying he will protect our 'green and pleasant land'. (LINK) He's entitled to an opinion but should his personal feelings be allowed to affect his actions as a minister?
Lord Heseltine calls for more action on growth. Embarrassing for Cameron and more ammunition for ya boo 'opposition'. Meanwhile, the economy staggers on, despite recent figures it is flat lining. I note he is agreeing with me that the best way to tackle the problem is to regard it as comparable to being at war and that the same tactics we would use if we were in a 1939 situation should be employed now.

Joseph Stigliz is one of the world's most eminent economists. (LINK) Here's an article he has written for the NY Times. Someone should draw ossie's attention to it... He's talking about the US economy of course but it applies equally to the UK.

The New York Times
The Opinio
Campaign Stops - Strong Opinions on the 2012 Election
Campaign Stops October 26, 2012, 12:20 am407 Comments
Some Are More Unequal Than Others
By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ

This election has rightly been characterized as one that will deeply affect the future direction of the country: Americans are being given a choice with potentially large consequences. One arena in which there are profound differences that has not been adequately debated is the future course of inequality.

Mitt Romney has been explicit: inequality should be talked about only in quiet voices behind closed doors. But with the normally conservative magazine The Economist publishing a special series showing the extremes to which American inequality has grown — joining a growing chorus (of which my book “The Price of Inequality” is an example) arguing that the extremes of American inequality, its nature and origins, are adversely affecting our economy — it is an issue that not even the Republicans can ignore. It is no longer just a moral issue, a question of social justice.

This perhaps provides part of the explanation for why inequality and poverty should suddenly appear as part of the Romney-Ryan makeover, as they attempt to portray themselves (to use a phrase of some 12 years ago) as compassionate conservatives. In Cleveland on Wednesday, Paul Ryan gave a speech that might lead one to conclude that the two Republican candidates were really concerned about poverty. But more revealing than oratory are budget numbers — like those actually contained in the Ryan budget. His budget proposal guts programs that serve those at the bottom, and little could have done more to enrich those at the top than his original tax proposals (like the elimination of capital gains taxes, a position from which he understandably has tried to distance himself). Every other advanced country has recognized the right of everyone to access to health care, and extending access was central to President Obama’s health care reform. Romney and Ryan have criticized that reform, but have said nothing about how or whether they would ensure universal access. Most important, the macroeconomic consequences of the Romney-Ryan economic program would be devastating: growth would slow, unemployment would increase, and just as Americans would need the social protection of government more, the safety net would be weakened.

We’d all do well to pay a bit closer attention. That American inequality is at historic highs is undisputed. It’s not just that the top 1 percent takes in about a fifth of the income, and controls more than a third of the wealth. America also has become the country (among the advanced industrial countries) with the least equality of opportunity. Meanwhile, those in the middle are faring badly, in every dimension, in security, in income, and in wealth — the wealth of the typical household is back to where it was in the 1990s. While the recession has made all of this worse, even before the recession they weren’t faring well: in 2007, the income of the typical family was lower than it was at the end of the last century. While Obama may not have done as much as he should to counteract the steep downturn he inherited from George W. Bush upon taking office — and he underestimated the depth of the problems that had been passed along to him — he did far more than his predecessor. And he could have done far more, as the dimensions of the problem became clearer to everyone, had he not faced such strong opposition in Congress.

There are many forces giving rise to this high and rising inequality. But the fact that America’s inequality is greater than other advanced countries’ says that it’s not just market forces. After all, other advanced countries are subjected to market forces much like those confronting us. Markets don’t exist in a vacuum. Government policies — or their lack — have played a critical role in creating and maintaining these inequities.

Inequality in “market incomes” — what individuals receive apart from any transfers from the government — has increased as a result of ineffective enforcement of competition laws, inadequate financial regulation, deficiency in corporate governance laws, and “corporate welfare” — huge open and hidden subsidies to our corporations that reached new heights in the Bush administration. When, for instance, competition laws are not enforced, monopolies grow, and with them the income of monopolists. Competition, by contrast, drives profits down. What is disturbing about Romney and Ryan is that they have done so little to distance themselves from the economic policies of the Bush administration, which not only led to poor economic performance, but also to so much inequality. Understandably, perhaps, Romney has not explained why those, like him, in the hedge fund and equity fund business should be able to use a loophole in the tax law to pay 15 percent taxes on their earnings, when ordinary workers pay a far higher rate.

Our government does less to correct these inequalities than we did in the past, or than other countries do, and as disparities in “market” incomes have increased, its efforts have diminished. It’s not just a matter of redistribution, as some suggest. It’s in part a matter of ensuring that those at the top pay a fair share of their taxes. And it’s in part a matter of ensuring that those at the bottom and in the middle get a fair start in life, through access to education, adequate nutrition and health, and not being exposed to the environmental hazards that have come to plague many of our poor neighborhoods.

But Romney’s campaign likes to play tricks with numbers. When he unleashed a tirade against the bottom 47 percent of supposedly freeloading Americans (for which he has since apologized), he failed to note what should have been obvious and has been pointed out repeatedly since he made that remark: those Americans do pay large amounts in taxes. These include (and I’m hardly the first to point this out) payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and even part of the corporate income taxes that our major corporations manage to pass on to their customers. He failed to note, too, the many older Americans barely above poverty who receive social security payments, for which they contributed through a lifetime of work. Yes, the rich may pay a high and increasing share of the country’s total tax revenue, but that’s only because they have a high and increasing share of our national income— not because their rates have gone up.

Many of the very rich, like Romney, are avoiding taxes because of numerous loopholes that favor the rich, and capital gains taxes that are taxed at less than half the rate of other income. The 14 percent rate Romney reportedly paid on his income last year is well below that of Americans of comparable income who worked for their money doing things like creating a real business. Tax havens like the Cayman Islands (condemned by the Group20 and all economic experts) facilitate another level of tax avoidance. That the practice is legal is not an economic justification — the loopholes that allow it were put in place by the rich and the bankers, lawyers and lobbyists who serve them so well. We can be sure that the money is not in the Cayman Islands just because it grows faster in the bright sunshine there.

Putting all this together isn’t the politics of envy, as Romney’s camp likes to complain, or even about shaking a finger at the country’s real freeloaders. It’s about cold, hard economics. Tax avoidance and low rates on capital gains — and the inequality they amplify — are weakening our economy. Were the rich paying their fair share, our deficit would be smaller, and we would be able to invest more in infrastructure, technology and education — investments that would create jobs now and enhance growth in the future. While education is central to restoring America as a land of opportunity, all three of these are crucial for future growth and increases in living standards. Tax havens discourage investment in the United States. Taxing speculators at a lower rate encourages speculation and instability — and draws our most talented young people out of more productive endeavors. The result is a distorted, inefficient economy that grows more slowly than it should.

I had never taken our MP for a euro sceptic, but his was the first question from PMQ's on #WATO today for Cameroon to bat away into the clutches of the Whips.

Weird Ed was not on impressive form at all, and even his back benchers didn't cheer as much

Bizarre in fact

I listened to Hezza on Today yesterday morning. He went to great lengths to support the leadership, but then he's a dyed in the wool Tory at heart and that was to be expected. However, despite his protestations, his 89 suggestions are a damning indictment of the Coalition and the essentially Tory fiscal policies. Slightly worrying for an old social democrat like me because I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said. The broad thrust of his arguments are very close to what Harold Macmillan proposed in his book 'The Middle Way' in 1938. I particularly agree with his proposals to shift financial power away from the London centric administration to the regions. I would add another balancing factor which would be to take back much of the control over the commanding heights of the economy that have been sold off to private enterprise. Remember Harold talking about 'selling the family silver'? Forget any arguments about Local Authorities or regional development boards being inefficient. The key thing is that money injected direct into local economies at that level doesn't end up in the insatiable maw of the private shareholders or the banks. It circulates and has a multiplier effect. There is nothing more inefficient at a time when investment capital is needed than sterilising it by chucking it into the black hole of the banks and the bond markets. Everyone laughed when Paul Krugman revived Milton Friedman's idea of dropping the bank bail-out money onto the general population from helicopters but he was making the important point about the desirability of getting the money into the economy at a low level and allowing it to percolate upwards being used over and over again as it did so. The proposals to put the money into the regions and local authorities are, in effect a modification of this 'helicopter drop' and while it is not a complete answer it is a step in the right direction.
There is a corollary in Barlick (and many other towns). In the days when we had a truly local economy, when the mills were working flat out, adding value and making real money which stayed in the town because the manufacturers were local owners, between 1885 and 1914 the town doubled in size and built the foundation of housing stock and local wealth which still lingers on to this day. Today, profits made in the town are almost all exported and is not injected back into the workforce or invested in the town. We have lost this model and anything that tends to get us back towards it is to be welcomed.

I think Hezza did actually say that it was government policy, not just of the coalition, to centralise things. His list of things will only work if those people who believe that they should own budgets won't give them up to be flexibly used, rather than on vanity screw driver manufacturing.

I must be losing it.... Can someone please translate that post?

"Slightly worrying for an old social democrat like me because I found myself agreeing with almost everything he said." - Stanley on Hezza
Listening to Hezza, I said to Mrs Tiz "At this rate, Stanley's going to find himself in the same camp as Heseltine!"

"Today, profits made in the town are almost all exported and is not injected back into the workforce or invested in the town. We have lost this model and anything that tends to get us back towards it is to be welcomed."
You need to institute the `Barlick Pound', by analogy with the `Totnes Pound' and the `Bristol Pound', to help keep money within the town. How about suggesting it through the pages of the local newspaper? If Totnes can do it, so can Barlick!

Denis McShane outed as another thieving trougher, Labour Party playing the hokey Cokey with him, but if he had any honour about him he would resign and cause a byelection

Labour Party wrote:These are very serious findings concerning Denis MacShane and we accept his statement this morning that his career as a Labour MP is effectively over. In the light of the report’s recommendations to the House the Labour Party has suspended Denis MacShane with immediate effect, pending a full NEC enquiry. We will be talking to Denis MacShane about his future and the best course of action for him and for his constituency

Presumably he'd still be entitled to the resettlement grant

Standards Committee wrote:Claimed nearly £20,000 a year in expenses for an office based in the garage of his South Yorkshire home.
Signed claims with a “nom de plume” purporting to come from a General Manager who did not in fact exist.
Knowingly submitted nineteen false invoices over a period of four financial years which were plainly intended to deceive the Parliamentary expenses authorities.
Claimed thousands of pounds for eight computers that got ‘lost’ or were taken by interns.
Claimed £12,900 for invoices from his EPI slush fund. He didn’t provide a single receipt for payments.

Standards Committee wrote:We accept that Mr MacShane is widely acknowledged for his interest in European affairs, and the funds he claimed could be said to have been used in supporting that interest. Those activities may have contributed to his Parliamentary work, albeit indirectly. He has expressed his regret, and repaid the money wrongly claimed. But this does not excuse his behaviour in knowingly submitting nineteen false invoices over a period of four financial years which were plainly intended to deceive the Parliamentary expenses authorities. This is so far from what would be acceptable in any walk of life that we recommend that Mr MacShane be suspended from the service of the House for twelve months. This would mean he lost his salary and pension contributions for this period

So, will Calamity Clegg be instituting the 'recall' option anytime soon?

Tizer wrote:You need to institute the `Barlick Pound',

We do have 'Barlick Gold', which is a seasonal currency issued by the town council that can only be spent in Barnoldswick shops.

When the banks went bust four years ago, I suggested that it was safer than sterling... sadly it's never taken on as a properly circulating currency!

Tiz, I've advocated a local sales tax on any business where the profits leave the town and raised this matter many times in my articles. I don't think local currencies can succeed in the long term or change the proportion of profits that are exported. You and Mrs Tiz are right! Very worrying! Read 'The Middle Way'!
The McShane affair has once more damaged public perceptions of of politics. The calls for another police investigation advocated by the mischievous right-wing Taxpayers Alliance will go nowhere because the documents they claim were not given to the police are personal letters protected under Parliamentary Privilege. Her was caught with his hand in the till, has resigned and should be made to pay the money back. Let's have a by-election in Rotherham and forget this rotten apple. Arguments about him are a distraction from what really needs addressing, the dire economic situation and the failure of Coalition policies to make any real progress in correcting it because they are obsessed with austerity. The real damage is being done at the bottom of the pile amongst the poorest citizens and it's a disgrace.

Parliamentary privilege is there for more noble reasons than to protect crooked MPs. Would you be so forgiving if he had been a Tory?

PS - This is from the Guido Fawkes blog. I don't know if it's fact or not, but he's no fool.

"A source close to the Standards and Privileges Committee pointed out to Guido that the police could not use the evidence gathered by the Committee during their investigation because it was subject to parliamentary privilege. Now that it has been published however it is no longer privileged and can be used by the forces of the law.
Guido has spoken to m’learned counsel and they have confirmed this is the case. He has therefore just put in a new complaint to the Met: "

PPS Update from Guido Fawkes - I'd forgotten this -

"You may recall that David Chaytor, Elliot Morley and Jim Devine went to the Supreme Court to argue that they were protected by parliamentary privilege. They attempted to use the 300-year-old law to argue that any case against them should be dealt with by Parliament rather than the courts. The Supreme Court ruled that expense fiddles were ordinary crimes not covered by parliamentary privilege. Devine was sentenced to 16 months"

Tripps wrote:Parliamentary privilege is there for more noble reasons than to protect crooked MPs. Would you be so forgiving if he had been a Tory?

I'm all for equality.

Fair trial, and if found guilty tar and feather then banish, sequestrating every asset to the state who they robbed

The distraction Stanley, is that there are people who steal given the opportunity because they feel that the consequences are not severe enough.

It strikes at the very heart of our democracy, and I am sure that the good people of Rotherham will pick another donkey tattooed with a red rose. It also undermines whatever good work Mr McShane may have achieved in parliament.

The TPA are currently undermining Union Pilgrims in the public sector, but to some extent I do agree with them. The state should not pay salaries for full time union officals, who do not actually work on wards, in fire engines, call centres, job centres etc.

I do believe that Unions are a good thing, but can not understand how the system has allowed such things to happen

Please, please let Barack Obama be voted in again as President of the USA. If Mitt Romney gets in then the USA, and the rest of the world too, will become a worse place and we'll be battening down the hatches as we enter the second Dark Age. No, I'm not exaggerating or wanting to frighten folk but here in the UK we don't hear so much about Romney and the other republican candidates; we British often see them as simply the American Tories but that's a false image, they are far more extreme right and fundamentalist. I'll give you an example. Obama has set in motion a programme to dramatically reduce the high fuel consumption of US vehicles that should bring miles per gallon figures close to those of the UK by about 2020. This will provide big cost savings for Americans, almost all adults owning a car, and will reduce carbon emissions and energy consumption dramatically, as well as showing the world that America recognises it has unsustainable high energy consumption and is serious about making change.... But Romney has pledged that one of the first things he would do if elected is to end this programme. As Tripps said, "I don't often use the phrase but `go figure'".

Actually I think it was I that said 'go figure when comparing the unbranded Tablet with the Apple iPad mini. I could have used the equally unpleasant American phrase 'do the math'. I'll probably live to regret being so cocky about it, but all seems good at the moment.

Back to US petrol prices. I have just looked it up and find that in New York the lowest 'gas' price is about $3.60 per US gallon. A US gallon is 3.785 litres, so at $1.60 to the £1 that converts to about 59 pence per litre. A price we can only dream of. I wonder what the reaction would be to our prices? I think that might encourage smaller cars.

PS If they call petrol gas, what do they call what we call gas?

Correction made! Go figure and do the math reminds me of an American who on hearing I had a science degree said "Gee, you must have a lot of smarts!". As for the word gas, as far as I know they use `gas' for natural gas as we do (must be confusing). Another word used differently is pants.