The effect of those "tanker strikes": fuel sales up 7.2%

Could the panic buying have boosted GDP?

The retail sales index for March 2012 is out, and it is stronger than expected. Year-on-year, sales increased in value by 5.7 per cent and by volume by 3.3 per cent. But there was one line in particular which caught everyone's eye:

Sales volumes growth was driven by other stores, non-store retailing and predominantly automotive fuel.

The volume of automotive fuel sales increased by 7.2 per cent in March compared to March 2011, while the breakdown shows that excluding fuel sales, retail growth was 4.9 per cent (value) or 2.8 per cent (volume), reductions of 0.8 or 0.5 points respectively.

When the government first sparked panic buying over the potential of a fuel tanker strike (which, if not announced today, will definitely not happen unless a second vote is held), there were suggestions that it may have been deliberately induced to boost GDP for the first quarter of 2012. Given we are on the knife-edge of a technical recession, even a 0.1 percentage point increase in GDP growth could be hugely psychologically important.

While it remains unlikely to be deliberate, the possibility that it could actually have that effect is no longer quite so laughable. If even half of the growth in fuel sales was due to the panic, that would mean an increase of 0.4 percentage points in total sales value in March 2012. Given fuel doesn't go off, that would likely be reflected by a similar dip in April 2012 – but April is in the second quarter.

Unpacking the various effects will be tricky, but it would be fascinating indeed if one of the worst ever news cycles for the government resulted in preventing an even worse one.

A petrol station with no fuel. But was it deliberate?

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Cabinet audit: what does the appointment of Liam Fox as International Trade Secretary mean for policy?

The political and policy-based implications of the new Secretary of State for International Trade.

Only Nixon, it is said, could have gone to China. Only a politician with the impeccable Commie-bashing credentials of the 37th President had the political capital necessary to strike a deal with the People’s Republic of China.

Theresa May’s great hope is that only Liam Fox, the newly-installed Secretary of State for International Trade, has the Euro-bashing credentials to break the news to the Brexiteers that a deal between a post-Leave United Kingdom and China might be somewhat harder to negotiate than Vote Leave suggested.

The biggest item on the agenda: striking a deal that allows Britain to stay in the single market. Elsewhere, Fox should use his political capital with the Conservative right to wait longer to sign deals than a Remainer would have to, to avoid the United Kingdom being caught in a series of bad deals. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.