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.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.