Osborne's run of luck continues as he dodges a triple-dip

The return of the economy to growth, however anaemic, allows the Chancellor to maintain the narrative that the UK is "healing".

George Osborne is currently enjoying that most precious of political commodities: luck. Having narrowly avoided an increase in the deficit earlier this week, the Chancellor has now dodged a triple-dip recession. The ONS's first estimate of GDP for Q1 of this year suggests that output rose by 0.3 per cent, three times greater than the 0.1 per cent forecast by most economists. 

Economically speaking, it makes little difference whether output is found to have marginally grown or marginally shrunk. The figures are revised by an average of 0.4 per cent and the economy is now merely the same size as it was six months ago. But the politics are all important. For Osborne, growth, however anaemic, allows him to maintain the narrative that the economy is "healing". Expectations have been so downgraded that any rise in output is now welcome. 

The return of the economy to growth will help the Tories to maintain the political momentum that they have enjoyed in recent weeks. At the same time, it will add to the pressure on Labour to outline a clearer alternative to the coalition's programme. Even after a double-dip recession, the loss of the UK's AAA credit rating and countless missed borrowing targets, polls show that Osborne and Cameron are still preferred as an economic team to Ed Miliband and Ed Balls. By two-to-one (59-29 per cent), the public still believe the cuts are necessary and by 36-24 per cent, they still blame the last Labour government more than the coalition for them. In the three years since the government came to power, these ratings have failed to shift in Labour's favour. This fact, combined with the prospect of a sustained period of growth, is one reason why, for the first time in months, Tory MPs are starting to believe that they can win in 2015. 

Chancellor George Osborne leaves Downing Street on April 10, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.