Today's GDP figures are the final nail in the coffin of Osborne's credibility

This was all so avoidable, and entirely predictable.

The Q2 GDP growth figures from the ONS today were absolutely awful. Indeed, it was even worse than I had expected, having predicted -0.5 per cent against a consensus view of -0.2 per cent. The number came in at -0.7 per cent, which meant that the economy has had three successive quarters of negative growth - four of the last five and five of the last seven.

The economy has contracted by 1.4 per cent over the last three quarters and by 0.8 per cent since the Chancellor's autumn statement in 2010. The UK and Italy are the only two major countries in double dip recession and growth has been worse in the UK over the last year than it has been in Spain. The decline was broad-based, driven especially by a collapse in construction, which declined by 5.2 per cent in Q2, following 4.9 per cent on the previous quarter. Production fell by 1.3 per cent and services by 0.1 per cent. The IMF forecast of 0.2 per cent growth last week already looks overly optimistic - I have pencilled in -0.5 per cent or worse.

The coalition government took over an economy that was growing and by its inept policies it has killed growth stone dead. In interviews today, the Chancellor claimed he was “relentlessly focused” on sorting the economy out in the same way (presumably as King Canute was also determined to keep the tide back?). This, as ever, was worthless drivel because it is clear to all that the government's economic policy of austerity has failed and they have no clue what to do. The only fix is a fundamental U-turn with tax cuts, especially VAT, and big incentives for firms to invest and hire today – not in three years time. And what about youth unemployment? Policies to get infrastructure going are welcome but they won't have any effect for years; they should have been implemented when the government took office - now it is too late to get the economy growing again anytime soon. The Tory-led government still has no growth plan. If it does, let’s hear it.

The recession deniers were out in force saying that they couldn’t possibly be wrong, so there must be something wrong with the numbers. Of course, the main reason for this is that they supported the government's austerity nonsense and have egg on their faces. Just to make the point for the umpteenth time – the average data revision over the last 20 years is +0.1 per cent and over the last five years -0.1 per cent. In fact, the data revisions have generally been on the low side when the economy is slowing, as occurred in 2008. The statistical chances of the data being revised down further are the same as being revised up.

I do recall the 35 business leaders, who wrote to the Telegraph in October 2010 to say:

It has been suggested that the deficit reduction programme set out by George Osborne in his emergency Budget should be watered down and spread over more than one parliament. We believe that this would be a mistake. Addressing the debt problem in a decisive way will improve business and consumer confidence....There is no reason to think that the pace of consolidation envisaged in the Budget will undermine the recovery.

It hasn't exactly worked out that way. There has been no recovery, the economy is smaller today than it was when they put pen to paper, and business and consumer confidence has collapsed. It would be interesting to hear from them today on why it all went so badly wrong. Their silence is telling.

I now have every expectation that within a few days the UK will lose its AAA credit rating. I never thought it was actually a big deal as proved by the fact that when France was downgraded and bond yields fell. But Slasher Osborne set it up as something he should be judged against and so we should all do that.

This was all so avoidable, and entirely predictable. Our incompetent, part-time Chancellor and his advisers should be removed from office and put out to pasture. Ed Balls was right.

I am very angry that this visitation of evil spirits had to be foisted on the British people. We deserve better. This really is time for the biggest U-turn in history - that's what failure brings. I really have no sympathy for the fools – Cameron, Osborne and Clegg especially – who talked the economy down by claiming it was bankrupt and falsely comparing the UK to Greece.

No more excuses.

 

"Slasher" Osborne has been proved wrong yet again. Photograph: Getty Images

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Amber Rudd's report on the benefits of EU immigration is better late than never

The study will strengthen the case for a liberal post-Brexit immigration system. 

More than a year after vowing to restrict EU immigration, the government has belatedly decided to investigate whether that's a good idea. Home Secretary Amber Rudd has asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to report on the costs and benefits of free movement to the British economy.

The study won't conclude until September 2018 - just six months before the current Brexit deadline and after the publication of the government's immigration white paper. But in this instance, late is better than never. If the report reflects previous studies it will show that EU migration has been an unambiguous economic benefit. Immigrants pay far more in tax than they claim in benefits and sectors such as agriculture, retail and social care depend on a steady flow of newcomers. 

Amber Rudd has today promised businesses and EU nationals that there will be no "cliff edge" when the UK leaves the EU, while immigration minister Brandon Lewis has seemingly contradicted her by baldly stating: "freedom of movement ends in the spring of 2019". The difference, it appears, is explained by whether one is referring to "Free Movement" (the official right Britain enjoys as an EU member) or merely "free movement" (allowing EU migrants to enter the newly sovereign UK). 

More important than such semantics is whether Britain's future immigration system is liberal or protectionist. In recent months, cabinet ministers have been forced to acknowledge an inconvenient truth: Britain needs immigrants. Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. Brexit Secretary David Davis, for instance, recently conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall after the UK leaves the EU. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants." 

In this regard, it's striking that Brandon Lewis could not promise that the "tens of thousands" net migration target would be met by the end of this parliament (2022) and that Rudd's FT article didn't even reference it. As George Osborne helpfully observed earlier this year, no senior cabinet minister (including Rudd) supports the policy. When May departs, whether this year or in 2019, she will likely take the net migration target with her. 

In the meantime, even before the end of free movement, net migration has already fallen to its lowest level since 2014 (248,000), while EU citizens are emigrating at the fastest rate for six years (117,000 left in 2016). The pound’s depreciation (which makes British wages less competitive), the spectre of Brexit and a rise in hate crimes and xenophobia are among the main deterrents. If the report does its job, it will show why the UK can't afford for that trend to continue. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.