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.

Photo:Getty
Show Hide image

There's something missing from our counter-terrorism debate

The policy reckoning that occured after the 2005 terrorist attacks did not happen after the one in 2016. 

“Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.” That satirical lyric about Nazi rocket scientists has come to mind more than few times watching various tech giants give testimony in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee, one of the underreported sub-plots of life at Westminster.

During their ongoing inquiry into hate crime in the United Kingdom, committee chair Yvette Cooper has found a staggering amount of hate speech being circulated freely on the largest and most profitable social media platform. Seperately, an ongoing investigation by the Times has uncovered how advertising revenue from Google and YouTube makes its way straight into the coffers of extremist groups, ranging from Islamist extremists to white supremacists and anti-Semites.

One of the many remarkable aspects of the inquiry has been the von Braunesque reaction by the movers and shakers at these tech companies. Once the ad revenue is handed out, who cares what it pays for? That’s not my department is the overwhelming message of much of the testimony.

The problem gains an added urgency now that the perpetrator of the Westminster attacks has been named as Khalid Masood, a British-born 52-year-old with a string of petty convictions across two decades from 1982 to 2002. He is of the same generation and profile as Thomas Mair, the white supremacist behind the last act of domestic terrorism on British shores, though Mair’s online radicalisation occurred on far-right websites, while Masood instead mimicked the methods of Isis attacks on the continent.  Despite that, both fitted many of the classic profiles of a “lone wolf” attack, although my colleague Amelia explains well why that term is increasingly outmoded.

One thing that some civil servants have observed is that it is relatively easy to get MPs to understand anti-terror measures based around either a form of electronic communication they use themselves – like text messaging or email, for instance – or a physical place which they might have in their own constituencies. But legislation has been sluggish in getting to grips with radicalisation online and slow at cutting off funding sources.

As I’ve written before, though there  are important differences between these two ideologies, the radicalisation journey is similar and tends to have the same staging posts: petty criminality, a drift from the fringes of respectable Internet sub-cultures to extremist websites, and finally violence.  We don’t yet know how closely Masood’s journey follows that pattern – but what is clear is that the policy rethink about British counter-terror after the July bombings in 2005 has yet to have an equivalent echo online. The success of that approach is shown in that these attacks are largely thwarted in the United Kingdom. But what needs to happen is a realisation that what happens when the rockets come down is very much the department of the world’s communication companies. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.