As the Office for National Statistics has reported this morning:
- UK real gross domestic product (GDP) is estimated to have increased by 0.1% in Quarter 4 (Oct to Dec) 2025, following a 0.1% increase in the previous quarter.
- GDP is estimated to be 1.0% higher in Quarter 4 2025, compared with the same quarter a year ago.
- In output terms, growth in the latest quarter was driven by an increase of 1.2% in production, while the construction sector fell by 2.1% and the services sector showed no growth.
- GDP is estimated to have increased by 1.3% annually in 2025, following growth of 1.1% in 2024.
- Real GDP per head is estimated to have fallen for the second consecutive quarter by 0.1%, but is up by 0.6% compared with the same quarter a year ago.
- Real GDP per head is estimated to have increased by 1.0% annually in 2025, following no growth in 2024.
- In line with the National Accounts Revisions Policy, this bulletin includes revisions to data from Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2025 to Quarter 3 (July to Sept) 2025; growth to total aggregate real GDP has not been revised across these periods, however, there have been some revisions to underlying components.
As I have already noted this morning, GDP growth is a dire measure of well-being, but our politicians continue to stick with it, nevertheless. Doing so, they reveal three things:
- They do not understand the harm a focus on GDP growth can actually deliver, the consequences of which we can see all around us, but to which they appear to be blind.
- They are hopeless at delivering growth, precisely because the harm it causes is now creating such extreme poverty, precarity, and insecurity that any prospects of growth are destroyed, but they are doing nothing to address those issues.
- We are stuck in a rut as a result, which is providing a breeding ground for resentment from which the only beneficiary is the far-right.
When, of hwn, will they learn? We really do need a politics of care to break out of this, with a focus on alleviating poverty through the redistribution of wasted and even harmful wealth as its priority. Only then will we see this country get better.
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!
Why the obsession with GDP.
It’s accepted that GDP is a poor measure of well-being. It fa to account for environmental degradation, unpaid household work, or income inequality.
Rising GDP requires relentless growth. That has lead us to an climate change tipping point. Overall we produce too much. We consume too much. It’s unsustainable. A mad system which is now failing a growing many and your sons may agree has failed their whole generation.
Is this GDP growth obsession to do with debt-based economy being like a Ponzi scheme, relying on continual borrowing to pay existing debt which in turn requires continue growth to remain stable?
Maybe methods for making the wealth extractors own or feel the poverty need to be put in place.
Would adding a proportionate share of ‘the cost of poverty’ to every business/shareholder’s sets of accounts be benefical to highlight shared responsibilty. As it is a debt to society maybe the proportionate figure for each business/shareholder should be added to the income side of the accounts and taxed accordongly. Maybe this should also be ring-fenced so that business/shareholder costs cannot be offset against it (i.e. a bit like a standing charge?)
This would possible make businesses and shareholders feel some of the pain/distress poverty causes and therefore care to reduce poverty and at the same time reduce ‘the cost of poverty’ added to their accounts and in turn their own tax liabilties.
Maybe the proportion applied could be based on share value, or share of business/sector contribution to GDP.
An adjustment in proportionate share could be made depending on if a business or sector is beneficial or not to society (i.e. proption increased for say gambling or share speculation)?
Apologies if this is a load of nonsense but i feel unless poverty starts to hurt wealth extractors in a noticable way they will not amend their ways and start to care about people and the planet/nature that are being destroyed by greed.
It would be exceptionally difficult to prove – although possible in the case of the biggest companies. It could easily be used to justify a general increasae in corporation tax.
And yes, I have said it before but imposing a levy on companies who have a high percentage of low paid workers should be straightforward
Agreed
And how they will squeal
Even if is unworkable – something must be done about the Tesco’s who make billions in profits while getting billions in public subsidies to their low paid staff . So maybe more corporation tax?
Yes…
For every GB Pound spent relieving poverty, there is a multiplier of about 1.5, (but there is no universally agreed figure). The figure is accepted as being firmly above 1 though. So why doesn’t Reeves get more bang for her buck by spending to relieve poverty?
But just another thought – If Starmer goes, so will Reeves; just maybe we’ll get a Chancellor who can see the huge amount of damage being done by the financial sector.
I think it could be much higher than that. Why won’t she do it? She suffers from class prejudice, against the working class, that is.
As I think I’ve probably said around here before, she’s also suffers from Disabled Prejudice. Putting VAT on Motability cars to hit the most disabled people in the UK (and let me tell you, getting PIP is no easy thing to manage: https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forum?view=topic&catid=10&id=110744&start=6
And all to raise the paltry sum of £900,000 pounds over the first 2 years. Hardly worth the bother collecting it! Now if it raised £900Thousand things would be different.
Reeves is an utter cow, and really shows up her prejudice very clearly in her budget. Boo, hiss! Sack Reeves, get rid of the horrible woman. Of course Starmer will never do that, but hopefully he’ll be gone soon – please God.
I can almost hear you!
The only growth I am seeing is in weeds and green algae everywhere caused by our warming planet.
Perhaps the business editors of various papers could do their job first.
0.1% “growth” with inflation at what, 3.4%, means the economy shrank.
Growth is reported after allowing for inflation.
Thank you Rightsnet
From their daily email
https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/now/post/69951
More than a safety net: How higher welfare spending supports economic productivity
New report from IPPR Scotland:
Challenging the myth that higher social spending is incompatible with economic success, new IPPR Scotland analysis confirms that many European countries with high spending on social protection measures such as benefits, childcare and training, also sustain highly productive, innovative and dynamic economies …
This research demonstrates that high spending on social protection does more than just place a safety net for the economically disadvantaged; it helps economies to become more productive. For example:
Higher unemployment benefits give people the security and support to retrain, upskill and re-enter the workforce in a job that matches their skills, interests and expertise.
Measures like generous childcare investment enable high employment rates for women.
High spending on social protection can also encourage entrepreneurial risk-taking and help facilitate economic change.
More:
Strong welfare states and sustained economic dynamism can go hand in hand, IPPR Scotland finds
More than a safety net: The welfare state as springboard to economic success and a better country
Much to agree with.