As George Orwell recognised in 1984, politics is the art of double-speak. You condemn an obvious evil, while at the same time encouraging it. Antisemitism is the obvious case in point. Anthony Albanese has belatedly begun to deplore this evil, yet his actions (and inactions) encourage it.

Since the pandemic, the Australian economy has been ravaged by largely home-grown inflation. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer say that tackling it is their ‘number one’ priority, but is this true? Or is the Albanese government happy to tolerate, and even encourage, this economic scourge – thereby prolonging, rather than easing, the community’s cost of living pain?

A strong case can be made for this view based not on the talking points to which Albanese and Chalmers routinely resort, but on what they leave unsaid about inflation, what they have done to exacerbate it, and by considering who benefits from the inflationary economic environment they have created.

Let’s start with what Albanese and Chalmers say, or rather do not say, about inflation.

While both dutifully assert they want to bring it down, neither makes this point with any passion or conviction. I don’t recall either of them describing inflation as an economic evil – a regressive tax constantly eating away at our living standards. Nor do they give the impression of urgency in getting on top of this problem.

The Reserve Bank of Australia’s softly-softly approach – which will not see underlying inflation return to its two-to-three per cent target until late 2025 – appears to be entirely acceptable to them.

Indeed, if Chalmers gets riled up about anything, it is to oppose the use of the only two tools we have in our arsenal (at least in the short term) to get inflation under control: restrictive interest rates and reduced government spending.

According to Chalmers, the deployment of these must be avoided at all costs lest our economy be ‘smashed’. If that is the case, it necessarily follows that our inflation rate must remain higher for longer. This is what economists would call his revealed preference.

He is like a fire chief who says he is committed to extinguishing a raging house fire, but objects to the use of hoses to put it out while pouring petrol onto the flames.

Albanese and Chalmers have backed up their ‘pro-inflation’ rhetoric with actions.

They are ramping up government spending, which is forecast to grow by a whopping 1.9 percentage points of gross domestic product over the two years to the end of 2024-25.

Nor have Albanese and Chalmers bothered to call out the states, in particular Victoria and Queensland, for adding fuel to the inflationary fire.

The government’s energy and industrial relations policies are also adding to inflationary pressures.

Why would the Albanese government tolerate, and even add to, inflationary pressures in the economy?

For all the household pain it imposes, inflation nevertheless brings significant political benefits.

It has – through the bracket creep it fosters – done the heavy lifting of budget repair, obviating the need for Chalmers to take politically difficult decisions to cut spending.

Inflation also, at least indirectly, benefits the Labor party’s paymasters in the trade union movement.

If the RBA had adopted a more aggressive approach to bring down inflation, our historically low unemployment rate would have risen more quickly than it has, reducing the bargaining power of unions in the process.

When Chalmers talks about protecting our post-pandemic employment gains, what he is really saying is that he wants our unions to take full advantage of both our over-stretched labour market and the government’s new industrial relations laws.

(I am not arguing against either full employment or higher real wages, but to be sustainable these must be accompanied by productivity growth).

Remember, union leaders’ hostility towards the RBA is embedded in their DNA. They will always prefer high inflation and excess demand for labour to low inflation and a more balanced labour market. They are getting exactly what they want, even while their own members’ pay gains are eaten up by rising consumer prices.

If the Albanese government is quite happy to tolerate high inflation, how can it get away with it, you might ask?

They have adopted the time-honoured two-step of dishonest governments everywhere.

First, pretend you haven’t caused, or at least significantly worsened, the problem. Second, offer to solve the problem by throwing taxpayer dollars and new regulations at it.

So we get Jim Chalmers’ cost-of-living relief – government payments to reduce energy bills and childcare costs – that purports to reduce inflation but in truth adds to it.

This relief is real, in the sense that more money is being put into people’s pockets, but as they spend it, demand in the economy grows, making inflation worse not better.

And as our big supermarkets are discovering, we get the threat of price regulation from the government; a prospect that should put fear into every consumer.

Albanese and Chalmers will no doubt double-down on their inflation deception in the coming months. Expect more inflationary cost-of-living initiatives in the new year, taking their inspiration from former Queensland premier Steven Miles, and further ugly scapegoating of big companies.

When these tactics fail at the ballot box, as looks highly likely, perhaps Labor’s post-election review will have the following simple message for the shattered party: ‘It was our inflation, stupid.’