The media is making much this morning of the fact that the economy supposedly returned to growth in November after declining last October.
Let's be clear. The growth was 0.1% in November.
In October, the decline was 0.1%.
Given their proximity in time, you could fairly add these two figures together, and almost certainly, they would round to zero.
The fact is that movements so small that they are little more than statistical rounding differences based on aggregates that themselves are based on considerable numbers of estimates seeking to measure GDP, which is a dire indicator of well-being, are being reported as if they matter when the only truth that is worth noting is that nothing of consequence when it comes to change is going on here.
The real stories are:
- Inequality continues
- People are still in unnecessary poverty
- Opportunities are not being created
- Young people are still alienated
- No significant investment is happening
- Climate change is not being abated
- Trade is still stagnant because of Brexit
- Nothing the government is doing is changing any of this.
Those are real stories. Percentage rounding differences in meaningless measures of growth are not.
When will the media get to the issues rather than reporting the press releases that pop into their inboxes as if they matter?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
What this means is that there has been essentially no GDP growth since the election in July 2024. Indeed, there has been essentially no GDP growth in the previous two years. According to the ONS, starting at 100 in February 2022, GDP was 100.6 in November 2022 and 101.1 in November 2024. That is an annual increase of about 0.3% per year, the square root of next to nothing. We are flatlining.
The interesting questions for our government in general and for Rachel Reeves in particular are:
* Are their policies making any difference? Things are carrying on much as before, so are they saying we would be in recession under the Conservatives? Might Labour’s policies in fact be making things worse?
* They pinned themselves to one measurable outcome: GDP growth. Without that they say nothing can be done (falsely, but it is the measure of success and necessary precondition they set for themselves). So when will it come?
* And what will they do, if growth doesn’t come this year? How much longer can they continue doing nothing much resulting in with no improvement to peoples’ lives? How much longer will Labour MPs support a Chancellor and PM who look like a one-term administration, if that?
“When will the media get to the issues rather than reporting the press releases that pop into their inboxes as if they matter?”
This goes to the very heart of why the body politc remains focussed on what ‘they’ want us to be…’ignorance is strength’
If the @BBC embedded curious investigative journalism, the real issues would get mentioned – and it wouldnt be just propagandising .
Tom Mills was on yesterday talking about making the BBC a mutual organisation – owned by it’s listeners and viewers – he wrote the history of the Beeb. This would break the stranglehold of govt – but cant see it ever being allowed.
Smacks of desperation to me.
As you imply: ‘And? So what……………………….?’
I’m not sure it’s even a rounding error, I would be interested to know what the stated margin of error is? They are close enough that they could in fact be reversed and no-one would know depending upon any errors.
The real stories you mention are much more important but if the political class of the last few governments think that the GDP figure is important, then they should be sacked anyway as they’ve done an appalling job based upon their preferred measures of their own performance, wonder why no journalist ever challenges them on why they are so bad at this and maybe they are chasing the wrong targets.
The media distortion and focus on trivia is considerable. What perplexes me is that this is us, people, organising ourselves, noone else but people are responsible or accountable to our predicament. This system that we have, and it’s pernicious effects on so many us, that could so easily be different, paints an ugly picture of those voted into power. They must not only have no compassion for those they don’t know, but also for their own families and friends, as they will know and be acquainted with people whose lives are being rendered unbearable by their policies. I can’t comprehend how they can live with themselves, knowing how many they are harming (and killing, by neglect and withdrawal of support – what the UN called a policy of social murder – deaths that only require inaction), including, ultimately, themselves. Chomsky has referred to much of US (and global) govt policy as “needless cruelty”, which pretty much sounds like psychopathy to me, an absence of bad feeling about others’ suffering, instead maybe feeling a certain frisson at the weilding of such power.
I have been looking at The Taxing Wealth Report 2024 and hope this is the correct place to ask a few questions thereon:
Have you sent a copy of this report to the Chancellor or did she not read it?
Page 42. Paragraph 5. 614,000 people receiving over £100,000 … totalling £24.5 billion. Surely this would total over £61.4 billion?
Page 242. Charging VAT on financial services would raise £8.7 billion of VAT. Do you know what type of fees/invoicing this relates to, as it is quite a significant amount of pre-VAT invoices? Further on the report says that banking and pension services are the main beneficiaries but what exactly are they charging these wealthy people for?
Page 243. Reduced rate of VAT applies to sanitary products, is this still correct?
Page 247. VAT on private education, which the chancellor has implemented, is expected to raise £1.6 billion. The government promised to recruit 6,500 new teachers which is only a third of a teacher for each school in the country, not much of an impact then. At £100,000 per teacher for recruitment fee, administration, salary and training that comes to £650 million leaving £1 billion available to spend or another 10,000 teachers?
1. No. She was in Opposition then. Would she read it? No. Why? She knows where it is and who I am. But I am supposedly a Corbynite.
2. Page 42. I think the figure you quote (I have not checked, it is Friday night) is the tax they pay.
3. Yes. The list was indicative.
4. Ask them!
Thanks