Inflation rises by half a per cent

CPI now stands at 2.7 per cent.

The ONS has released the inflation report for this month. It's up. A lot:

The Consumer Prices Index (CPI) annual inflation stands at 2.7 per cent in October 2012, up from 2.2 per cent in September. The main upward pressure came from the education sector (university tuition fees) with smaller upward contributions from food & non-alcoholic beverages and transport. These were partially offset by downward pressures from the housing & household services, recreation and miscellaneous goods & services sectors.

The Retail Prices Index (RPI) annual inflation stands at 3.2 per cent in October 2012, up from 2.6 per cent in September.

That's the highest since May for the CPI, and 0.4 points higher than the consensus estimate (which was for 2.3 per cent for RPI and CPI). The fact that the main upward pressure came from tuition fees means that this rise is almost entirely due to the government's own decisions – and also that it is all-but-guaranteed to fall by an equivalent amount in a years time.

The extent of the effect of rising tuition fees is clear in this chart, which breaks down the various contributions of different spending categories on inflation:

This is a crisis of a sort: It is also important to point out that this now leaves inflation again racing ahead of wage growth, by a full percentage point (wage inflation stood at 1.7 per cent in the last estimate); and the idea of a "misery index" - compounding the effects of inflation and unemployment together to see the pain the economic climate inflicts on the typical person - indicates that this rise will wipe out recent goodwill gained from the falling unemployment rate. But it is not a macroeconomic crisis; without the government's short-sighted actions in 2010, this rise would be just 0.1 per cent, easily enough to argue that low inflation is here to stay. We'll see next month what happens to the overall trend.

Andrew Goodwin, senior economic advisor to the Ernst & Young ITEM Club, comments:

This is a very nasty surprise. We had expected inflation to pick up in October because of the rise in tuition fees and food prices, but the scale of the increase was surprisingly large. 

Further out we are still confident that inflation will slow back towards the target. And because of the causes of the October increase, it could be argued that these figures aren’t quite as bad for household finances as they may first appear. They represent a significant squeeze for those affected directly by the tuition fee increase, however the vast majority of people will not have been impacted. 

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the inflation target is a symmetrical one. The Bank of England's mandate is to bring inflation to 2 per cent, and it must write a letter to the chancellor explaining why it has failed if it is more than one point away in either direction. If inflation does stay below three per cent, then it remains not much to worry about.

Updated 9:53 and 11:29 with further analysis.

 

A student walks through St John's, Cambridge. 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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Forget gaining £350m a week, Brexit would cost the UK £300m a week

Figures from the government's own Office for Budget Responsibility reveal the negative economic impact Brexit would have. 

Even now, there are some who persist in claiming that Boris Johnson's use of the £350m a week figure was accurate. The UK's gross, as opposed to net EU contribution, is precisely this large, they say. Yet this ignores that Britain's annual rebate (which reduced its overall 2016 contribution to £252m a week) is not "returned" by Brussels but, rather, never leaves Britain to begin with. 

Then there is the £4.1bn that the government received from the EU in public funding, and the £1.5bn allocated directly to British organisations. Fine, the Leavers say, the latter could be better managed by the UK after Brexit (with more for the NHS and less for agriculture).

But this entire discussion ignores that EU withdrawal is set to leave the UK with less, rather than more, to spend. As Carl Emmerson, the deputy director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, notes in a letter in today's Times: "The bigger picture is that the forecast health of the public finances was downgraded by £15bn per year - or almost £300m per week - as a direct result of the Brexit vote. Not only will we not regain control of £350m weekly as a result of Brexit, we are likely to make a net fiscal loss from it. Those are the numbers and forecasts which the government has adopted. It is perhaps surprising that members of the government are suggesting rather different figures."

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts, to which Emmerson refers, are shown below (the £15bn figure appearing in the 2020/21 column).

Some on the right contend that a blitz of tax cuts and deregulation following Brexit would unleash  higher growth. But aside from the deleterious economic and social consequences that could result, there is, as I noted yesterday, no majority in parliament or in the country for this course. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.