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.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Grenfell survivors were promised no rent rises – so why have the authorities gone quiet?

The council now says it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels.

In the aftermath of the Grenfell disaster, the government made a pledge that survivors would be rehoused permanently on the same rent they were paying previously.

For families who were left with nothing after the fire, knowing that no one would be financially worse off after being rehoused would have provided a glimmer of hope for a stable future.

And this is a commitment that we’ve heard time and again. Just last week, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) reaffirmed in a statement, that the former tenants “will pay no more in rent and service charges for their permanent social housing than they were paying before”.

But less than six weeks since the tragedy struck, Kensington and Chelsea Council has made it perfectly clear that responsibility for honouring this lies solely with DCLG.

When it recently published its proposed policy for allocating permanent housing to survivors, the council washed its hands of the promise, saying that it’s up to the government to match rent and services levels:

“These commitments fall within the remit of the Government rather than the Council... It is anticipated that the Department for Communities and Local Government will make a public statement about commitments that fall within its remit, and provide details of the period of time over which any such commitments will apply.”

And the final version of the policy waters down the promise even further by downplaying the government’s promise to match rents on a permanent basis, while still making clear it’s nothing to do with the council:

It is anticipated that DCLG will make a public statement about its commitment to meeting the rent and/or service charge liabilities of households rehoused under this policy, including details of the period of time over which any such commitment will apply. Therefore, such commitments fall outside the remit of this policy.”

It seems Kensington and Chelsea council intends to do nothing itself to alter the rents of long-term homes on which survivors will soon be able to bid.

But if the council won’t take responsibility, how much power does central government actually have to do this? Beyond a statement of intent, it has said very little on how it can or will intervene. This could leave Grenfell survivors without any reassurance that they won’t be worse off than they were before the fire.

As the survivors begin to bid for permanent homes, it is vital they are aware of any financial commitments they are making – or families could find themselves signing up to permanent tenancies without knowing if they will be able to afford them after the 12 months they get rent free.

Strangely, the council’s public Q&A to residents on rehousing is more optimistic. It says that the government has confirmed that rents and service charges will be no greater than residents were paying at Grenfell Walk – but is still silent on the ambiguity as to how this will be achieved.

Urgent clarification is needed from the government on how it plans to make good on its promise to protect the people of Grenfell Tower from financial hardship and further heartache down the line.

Kate Webb is head of policy at the housing charity Shelter. Follow her @KateBWebb.