This is a graph published by the ONS this morning:
Overall growth in the first quarter of 2015 has fallen to 0.3%. As the ONS says:
- Change in gross domestic product (GDP) is the main indicator of economic growth. GDP is estimated to have increased by 0.3% in Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2015 compared with growth of 0.6% in Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2014.
- Output increased in services by 0.5% in Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2015. The other 3 main industrial groupings within the economy decreased, with construction falling by 1.6%, production by 0.1% and agriculture by 0.2%.
- GDP was 2.4% higher in Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2015 compared with the same quarter a year ago.
So, services are continuing to keep growth afloat, just. But we're not making things, we're not exporting, and we're not building. Indeed, as the graph shows, whilst Labour boosted production, construction and even agriculture after the 2008 crash this is simply not true under the Coalition. From when the Labour growth plans ran out in 2011 until 2015 all three of these sectors have declined. That's no economic miracle, and if it's a plan it's a bad one. This is an economy that's still not working.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The banks (services) are prospering but only at the explicit expense of the other sectors. Small to medium enterprises, often properly referred to as the lifeblood of the economy, are being seized, stripped off their assets (promptly sold off for immediate bank profits) and broken up. This explains the above graph. If this is news to you, here’s an url to get you going http://www.banksters.link/ You might think, after reading it, this makes a mockery of Cameron’s frequent claims his party is on the side of hardworking people who want to get on. The reverse appears to be true in fact. I’m leaving the url as it is (normally I code them so I know they’ll be clickable) as I think this blog format now does this automatically. Let’s see.
If only Labour took their lead from this blog. It’s concise and to the point while proving the point.
maybe also mention this tweet from telegraph corro
https://twitter.com/Pete_Spence/status/592995351113654272
Richard
I’ve created a website which aims to set out the key problems with inequality and unsustainably low taxes on the wealthy, but taking a very visual and interactive approach. My aim is to try and take the message out to a wider audience.
http://www.inequalitywatch.org
From reading through your site, I think we’re pretty much on the same page, and so I hope it will appeal to you.
I’ve taken all my data from reputable sources like ONS, OBR, IFS, Thomas Piketty etc. I had to make some assumptions with Piketty’s data in one case but only after consulting with him on which approach to take. I’ve also just updated the site with the latest income distribution data from Jonathan Cribb at IFS (which I use to simulate the effect of taking inequality back to the average of the 1970’s). I realise that any data errors would significantly undermine the message and so have been extremely careful.
Anything you can do to help promote the site would be fantastic.
Cheers
Simon
Good luck
I tweeted it
As someone who actually makes things, can you explain something for me?
In a previous career, if I repaired a diamond engagement ring, I might make a new setting for a customer & fit that to their old half shank. Or make a new half shank & fit it to the old setting. (Any woman would tell you it’s still the engagement ring she was given) Or I might make a setting & half shank & marry the two. And that’s a completely new engagement ring for another happy couple. Which is services & which is manufacturing?
Nowadays I might design & build a two bedroom extension to your house. Or put up the same construction in a field, on its own. And it’s now a cottage. Am I then in construction rather than home services? If I sell the design of the cottage to a builder & he builds it, am I still in construction or have I moved back to services?
The division may seem clear cut to you, but it certainly isn’t to me. When I’ve been doing them I haven’t actually noticed any difference in the work involved.
Finally, if a bank arranges the finance enables a new factory, where does the line come between banking services & manufacturing products? Up until the products are sold, the factory’s dependent on the finance. So is it after they’re sold?
It’s not clear cut
It’s approximated for national accounting
And that’s fine: all accounting is approximation
If it’s not clear cut, why do you make such a big thing of the difference?
Because if it is used consistently the trends are still significant
if the same parameters have always been used to gauge the difference between the service and construction industry Then I’m not sure what your point is.
Oh, my point would be why at certain times I’ve done services & at others manufacturing. I’ve always made more money providing services. And there’s much less capital required. Manufacturing was what I’ve done when service jobs weren’t available.
So, being as it’s almost impossible to differentiate what’s a service & what’s manufacturing – pretty well any manufacturing company will employ most of its staff in roles that in another context could also be services (company accountants, for instance)- what’s the problem? If the country’s moving towards more services then maybe there’s more money in providing services. Come to think of it, as GDP’s a measure of money & the proportion of services has risen, there is apparently is more money in services.
I still don’t see your point, why argue one against the other when they are symbiotic. an economy that’s has both manufacturing and service in relative equilibrium will in my opinion be a success.