Trouble ahead for Osborne as economy is forecast to have shrunk again

Danger of a triple-dip recession as NIESR forecasts that the economy contracted by 0.3 per cent in the final quarter of 2012.

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable", John Kenneth Galbraith once remarked and recent events have done nothing to prove him wrong. But the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has a better record than most and its latest forecast suggests that the economy shrank by 0.3 per cent in the final quarter of 2012.

"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable", John Kenneth Galbraith once remarked and recent events have done nothing to prove him wrong.

In the last quarter, as you'll recall, David Cameron and George Osborne boasted that we're "on the right track" after the economy grew by 1 per cent (later revised down to 0.9 per cent). But that figure was artificially inflated by the Olympic ticket sales, which added 0.2 per cent to growth, and by the bounce-back from the extra bank holiday in June, which added 0.5 per cent. To borrow Cameron's phrase, the government should never have assumed that "the good news will keep coming".

While a contraction in quarter four wouldn't represent an unprecedented "triple-dip recession" (that would require two successive quarters of negative growth), it would make it significantly harder for Osborne to claim that the economy is "healing". If the economy is shown to have shrunk in Q4, four of the last five quarters will have been negative. We'll know for sure when the Office for National Statistics publishes its first estimate of GDP on 25 January.

The longer-term outlook for the economy remains unremittingly grim. After a growth rate of 0.0 per cent in 2012, NIESR expects the economy to grow by little more than 1 per cent in 2013 and doesn't expect output to return to its pre-recession peak until 2014 at the earliest.

George Osborne said that the economy was "on the right track" after growth of 0.9 per cent in the third quarter of 2012. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Show Hide image

Leader: The angry middle

As a sense of victimhood extends even to the middle classes, it makes Western democracies much more difficult to govern.

Two months after the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union, it remains conventional wisdom that the referendum result was largely a revolt by the so-called left behind. Yet this is not the full picture. Many of the 52 per cent who voted Leave were relatively prosperous and well educated, yet still angry and determined to deliver a shock to the political system. We should ask ourselves why the English middle class, for so long presumed to be placid and risk-averse, was prepared to gamble on Brexit.

Populism has long appealed to those excluded from political systems, or from a share in prosperity. In recent years, however, its appeal has broadened to young graduates and those on above-average incomes who also feel that they have not benefited from globalisation. The sense of middle-class victimhood has become a major strand in Western politics.

In the United States, middle-class anger has powered support for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The former drew his activist base mostly from young liberals. And while Mr Trump’s success in the Republican primaries was often attributed to a working-class insurrection against “the elites”, exit poll data showed that the median yearly income of a Trump voter was $72,000, compared with a national average of $56,000. (For supporters of Hillary Clinton, the figure was roughly $61,000.) It is not the have-nots who have powered Mr Trump’s rise, but the have-a-bits.

In the UK, similar forces can be seen in the rise of Jeremy Corbyn. Indeed, research shows that three-quarters of Labour Party members are from the top social grades, known as ABC1. About 57 per cent have a degree.

Mr Sanders, Mr Trump and Mr Corbyn have very different policies, ideologies and strategies, but they are united by an ability to tap into middle-class dissatisfaction with the present order. Some of that anger flows from politicians’ failure to convey the ways in which society has improved in recent years, or to speak truthfully to electorates. In the UK and much of the West, there have been huge gains – life expectancy has risen, absolute poverty has decreased, teenage pregnancy has fallen to a record low, crime rates have fallen, and huge strides have been made in curbing gender, sexual and racial discrimination. Yet we hear too little of these successes.

Perhaps that is why so many who are doing comparatively well seem the most keen to upset the status quo. For instance, pensioners voted strongly to leave the EU and are the demographic from which Ukip attracts most support. Yet the over-65s are enjoying an era of unprecedented growth in their real incomes. Since 2010, the basic state pension has risen by over four times the increase in average earnings. 

Among young people, much of their anger is directed towards tuition fees and the iniquities of the housing market. Yet, by definition, tuition fees are paid only by those who go into higher education – and these people receive a “graduate bonus” for the rest of their lives. Half of school-leavers do not attend university and, in a globalised world, it is their wages that are most likely to be undercut by immigration.

However, we should not be complacent about the concerns of the “angry middle”. The resentment exploited by Donald Trump is the result of 40 years of stagnant median wages in the United States. In Japan and Germany, median wages have not increased in the past two decades. In the UK, meanwhile, the median income for those aged 31-59 is no greater than it was in 2007, and those aged 22-30 are 7 per cent worse off, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

To compound the problem, the wealthy keep getting wealthier. In 1980, American CEOs were paid 42 times the wage of the average worker. They are now paid 400 times as much. In the UK, the share of household income going to the top 1 per cent has more than doubled since 1979. Because of our hyperconnected, globalised media culture, we see more of the super-rich, fuelling feelings of resentment.

As a sense of victimhood extends even to the middle classes, it makes Western democracies much more difficult to govern, with voters oscillating between populists of the left and the right. The political centre is hollowing out. Rather than pander to the populists, we must do more to quell the politics of victimhood by addressing the root of this corrosive sense of grievance: entrenched inequality. 

This article first appeared in the 25 August 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Cameron: the legacy of a loser