Blow for Osborne as economy shrinks by 0.5 per cent

Fears of a double-dip recession return after economy unexpectedly contracts.

Most forecasters predicted economic growth of 0.4 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2010 but, as is often the case, the consensus was badly wrong. The economy actually shrank by 0.5 per cent, according to the first estimate by the Office for National Statistics.

George Osborne has inevitably cited the poor weather in the government's defence but even without the snow, the ONS says, growth would have been flat at 0 per cent. After strong growth of 0.7 per cent in the third quarter and 1.1 per cent in the second quarter (largely thanks to the last government's stimulus package and the Bank of England's ultra-loose monetary policy), the economy is running on empty again. Overall growth for the year was 1.4 per cent, significantly below the Office for Budget Responsibility's prediction of 1.8 per cent.

With the effects of the VAT rise yet to be felt and the spending cuts still to come in April, there is now a real risk of a double-dip recession – two successive quarters of negative growth. It's a good day for Labour to have Ed Balls, who has frequently warned of a double dip, leading the attack. But he should be careful this morning to strike a tone of concern, rather than one of vindication.

Meanwhile, as the graph I've put together shows, the spectre of stagflation – rising prices combined with falling growth – has returned.

GDP

The biggest difficulty for the government is that Osborne has few monetary weapons at his disposal. Interest rates are already at record lows and the exchange rate has fallen sharply since the crisis began in 2008. By contrast, as Robert Skidelsky noted in an essay last year for the NS, after the savage cuts of the 1981 Budget, Geoffrey Howe was able to loosen the money supply by cutting interest rates by 2 per cent.

Insofar as the government has a plan B, it is for further quantitative easing (QE). But with the cost of unsecured loans significantly higher than before the crisis, it is far from certain that another monetary injection will have the desired effect. Osborne is also under growing pressure from the inflation hawks to raise interest rates and avoid another round of QE.

For now, the government is sticking to its Thatcher-like insistence that there is no alternative. But if the next set of growth figures (published in April) show little improvement, Osborne will begin to come under significant pressure to postpone the cuts. The Chancellor's decision to declare hubristically last November that "the plan is working" now looks like a very poor judgement indeed.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA