The UK economy hasn't grown more than the US
The US has grown by 2.3 per cent in the last year, while the UK has remained flat.
By George Eaton Published 26 October 2012 15:05
The final set of US growth figures before the presidential election were released today, showing that the economy grew at an annual rate of 2 per cent in the third quarter or a quarterly rate of 0.5 per cent. The Tories, unsurprisingly, are keen to point out that that's a worse performance than the UK, which, as we learned yesterday, grew at a quarterly rate of 1 per cent in Q3. But they would be wise not to invite too much comparison of the UK and US economies.
First, while the US has grown by 2.3 per cent over the last year, the UK economy has failed to grow at all. As the Office for National Statistics reported yesterday: "GDP in volume terms was estimated to have been flat in Q3 2012, when compared with Q3 2011".
Second, while the US economy is now 2.3 per cent above its pre-recession peak, the UK remains 3.1 per cent below. The US has grown for 13 consecutive quarters, but we've only just recovered the output lost in the double-dip recession (a fate that the US, partly thanks to a policy of stimulus, rather than austerity, avoided). As a result, while they've grown by 3.9 per cent over the last two years, we've grown by just 0.6 per cent.
Finally, since the UK Q3 figure was artificially inflated by the bounce-back from the extra bank holiday in June (responsible for around half of the 1 per cent growth) and the inclusion of the Olympic ticket sales (responsible for 0.2 per cent), it's foolish of the Treasury to cite it as proof that we're "on the right track". Indeed, as I wrote yesterday, a significant number of forecasters believe it's possible or even probable that the economy will shrink in quarter four. Rather than complacently boasting about a one-off surge in growth, the Tories should be acting to prevent a triple-dip recession.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















11 comments
It appears to me that this web site doesnt load up on a Motorola Droid. Are other folks getting the exact same issue? I enjoy this blog and dont want to have to skip it whenever Im away from my computer.
US growth is being fueled by government spending, huge debt and af**king massive increasing deficit and pointless mickey mouse pen-pushing jobs in the US Government, now that's hardly sustainable solid growth now is it?
While the UK is slowly re-balancing it's economy away from the wasteful unsustainable Government public sector to the part of the REAL economy that creates REAL growth.
This article is basically a load b****cks.
Don't buy into the myths! Government spending has been a drag on US growth for most of the Obama years. State and local government has slashed spending, and the Obama stimulus was only active at the start of his presidency.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES HAVE CONTRIBUTED MORE TO UK GROWTH THAN US GROWTH 2011-2012.
Only we're not re-balancing are we?
The only defecit reduction we've had has come from cuts to fixed investments, house and school building, road maintainance and the like. One part of govt spending that does, unquestionably, create REAL jobs and growth.
Agreed that we must prioritise capital over current spending. In 2010 Labour were planning to cut capital spending MORE than the Tories, which would have exacerbated our 'technical double dip'.
In reality there was no double dip recession*, and we are rebalancing. Its just going to take longer than most anticipated. Examples of rebalancing include; one million extra private sector jobs, and a reorientation of exports toward the BRICS.
*Strip out volatile construction and oil; UK has achieved trend growth for the last six months.
Lee, you just can't strip out major sectors to fit a narrative.
Oil production has been in decline since 1999, the Tories used North Seal Oil to bankroll 3 million unemployed.
No double dip, dream on, Osborne killed the 2009-2010 recovery, then set about plunging the economy into the worst double dip for 50 years.
You seem to forget, Plan A was going to eliminated deficits within 5 years, and produce annualised growth of 2.8%
Matthew
This is a bit deep, but we'll try learning by numbers:
1) Stripping out oil and construction
These are not major sectors of the economy, and are noted for their volatility. Construction accounts for 6% of GDP, with the vast majority of people being employed by manufacturing and services. The construction figures have attracted controversy, because of accounting changes. Oil production may have peaked in 1999; but has suffered from specific problems recently, including maintenance issues. Clobbering the industry with higher taxes has also reduced investment.
Oil and construction are regularly excluded from the figures, in order to see the underlying strength of the economy. Independent commentators have recently done this. (see BBC's Stephanomics blog). You can't accuse Auntie of altering the figures to fit a pro austerity narrative.
2) Oil funded unemployment in the 1980s
Unemployment tripled all over the world in the 1980s; including in socialist France, which hadn't struck oil. Thatcher's bust was a necessary corrective to decades of avoiding recession, and ended 100 years of relative economic decline. (academic consensus, Crafts et al) From sick man of Europe to productivity on a par with Germany by 1987. (TFP5, manufacturing)
3) Cuts have killed Labour's recovery
Labour's recovery was fake, like much of their growth in the naughties. 2009-10 was based on frenetic restocking following the recession, and a construction boom. The latter was unsustainable, and has subsequently unwound.
Stop obsessing about the quantity of cuts, and consider the quality. Labour would have cut capital spending more, certainty with regard to infrastructure projects. (see Darling plan) This would have exacerbated the inevitable double dip.
NB: STATE SPENDING HAS BOOSTED GROWTH FOR THE LAST 18 MONTHS, AND HAS RISEN IN REAL TERMS. Even excluding benefits, which had to rise in line with inflation; core spending is stable. (ONS) So much for savage cuts! Relatively high inflation, and the EZ crisis are the major drags on UK growth. You can't blame cuts!
4) No growth
Growth is a crude indicator, with much of Labour's having been based on debt and state spending. If you look beneath the surface; there is rebalancing, which is building the foundations of future prosperity. Growth forecast have been downgraded all over the world, even in countries that have avoided cuts.
NB: WE ARE FORECAST TO GROW FASTER THAN SO CALLED MODEL ECONOMIES LIKE GERMANY. (NEXT YEAR)
YOU'VE NOT GOT A LEG TO STAND ON!
If you quit looking for work & the Gvt doesn't count you in the figures, you are not
unemployed...brilliant solution to our economic ditch! One month 2012, 1.2 million people left our US work force.
In the past two years, the number of people in the U.S. who are older than 16 (and not in the military or prison) has grown by 5.4 million. The number of people working or looking for work hasn't grown at all.
So Tories, just to be clear the US spends a modest amount of money following policies that have historically worked - and got some economic growth. Whilst the UK following policies that have historically failed took us into a double dip recession, followed by one quarter of growth. Therefore the policy that failed is the best one to follow?
PS How much industrial strength LSD does it take to see George Osbourne as economically competent?
Lmao what a load of old socialist lefty BS!
Except the UK debt is GROWING and deficit reduction targets might as well have been written on toilet paper for what they were worth. Instead of some actual economic activity it's being spent on simply keeping a new generation a few quid away from starvation and on income support.
The vast bulk of so-called 'private sector' jobs are just civil servants being re-hired as private contractors to do the jobs they were made redundant from (at huge expense) just 2 years ago.
The only reason borrowing is so cheap for our government is because the BoE is free to print money, which it has done to the tune of £325bn - almost a year's worth of GDP.
And all the while our banking system remains unreformed compared to the casino that got us into this mess.
Mombasa you're in cloud-cuckoo land mate.