Triple dip remains successfully avoided in GDP second estimate

Stagnation continues, writes Alex Hern.

The second estimates of GDP growth in 2013 is out, and it is unrevised at 0.3 per cent; the triple dip remains successfully avoided. On top of that, the senior economic advisor to Ernst and Young's ITEM club, Andrew Goodwin, argues that:

It still looks as if Q2 growth will be firm and possibly even stronger than Q1. The monthly data shows service sector output 0.5% above the Q1 average in March and with the production and construction data showing similar trends, this provides a solid springboard for Q2 GDP. Indeed, activity would have to fall back significantly through the quarter to generate a weaker outturn than Q1.

Source: ONS

Even while positive information is coming out about the likely prospects of this current quarter, the picture which is being drawn about the last quarter is getting gloomier. It's becoming clear that the quarter was positive largely due to a contribution from stockbuilding – businesses overproducing in order to build up their reserves. There was little rise in consumer spending, and investment and net exports actually fell.

But a warning. That fact doesn't mean that we were "really" in a recession, any more than the fact that the 2012 double-dip was largely due to declining oil and gas revenues means that that doesn't "really" exist.

Britain has been hovering between positive and negative growth for over a year now. That inevitably means that there will be seemingly-important distinctions which come down to a mere statistical fluke. But that's not a bug of the system, it's a feature: what it tells us its that we aren't in recession or growth, but stuck in that zone we call stagnation. That's been true for too long, and today's figures show no change there. (And yes, you have heard me banging this drum before). As Goodwin concludes:

We are still optimistic that the momentum will build, but this data reinforces the idea that this recovery is going to be a long, hard, slog.

Photograph: Getty Images

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.