I define inflation as simply being 'when the government prints more money'.

I would posit that this definition is useless in a fiat currency. Under a gold standard, the government printing money was relevant because that increased the amount of money, which in turn had some meaning because of the gold-to-money ratio. But in a fiat currency no such meaning exists.

Furthermore, has whether the government printed more or less money actually ever affected you directly, provably in your personal life? I bet that it hasn't. [1] But I bet that the Consumer Price Index does affect your personal life. So CPI as measure for inflation is actually useful, unlike your definition.

Finally, it would be nice if you used clearer language to describe what you are talking about. I'm sure that it is obvious to you that the government literally printing money is completely irrelevant. But your use of such language makes it hard for me to understand what you are actually talking about (I just appreciate a clear conversation on the matter).

Are you talking about the government spending more money? Clearly you can't be saying that government spending is always inflationary, can you? And if you did, I hope you'd at least acknowledge that it's just the spending part that matters, i.e. it is irrelevant whether we're talking about government, foreign, or private spending.

Are you talking about the Fed increasing the size of the Monetary Base, as happened with Quantitative Easing? In that case, hasn't that QE/QE2 demonstrated clearly enough to you that there is no causal link from the MB to Consumer Price Indices?

Are you talking about the government increasing the amount of money in terms of M1-M3? In that case, you'd be woefully misinformed, since that amount largely depends on bank lending, and so the government has basically no direct influence over it.

Are you talking about something else that I've missed?

I wasn't talking about the UK specifically. I was just trying to say that, in general, I think the outcome in terms of social unrest is going to be about the same whether you reduce the amount of money you give people or whether you give them money that is worth less.

There is actually an interesting technical argument against that stance that dates back to the days of Keynes. Basically, what progressive economists were (and still are) arguing is that for most people, X% inflation is better than an X% decrease in income. The reason is that most people have long-running contracts forcing them to pay nominally fixed amounts, such as rents or mortgages.

Here's an illustrating computation with very simple numbers. Say I earn 1000# per month, of which 500# are committed to such contracts. 500# are available for "discretionary" spending (food, clothes, etc.). I now have the choice between 10% inflation and a 10% reduction in income.

In the case of 10% inflation, I still have 500# available for discretionary spending, only it's worth the equivalent of 450# of the old money.

In the case of 10% reduction in income, I earn 900# with my contractual commitments remaining the same, so I only have 400# left for discretionary spending.

Clearly, inflation is better for me. The situation is different for people with significant net financial assets of course, but the majority of the population does not fall into that category.

[1] Unless by printing money you mean spending money and you are a government contractor.