GDP figures: Osborne has been the beneficiary of low expectations

The economy is still 1.3 per cent smaller than before the recession and the recovery remains the slowest since 1870s.

Solid but far from spectacular. That is probably the fairest description of how the economy performed in the final quarter of last year. The ONS's first estimate suggests that GDP rose by 0.7 per cent, below the 0.8 per cent measured in Q3, but enough to ensure that 2013 was the strongest year for growth since 2007, with output rising by 1.9 per cent. 

After fears of a triple-dip recession less than a year ago, the economy has enjoyed an unexpected bounceback. But it's important to remember that this remains the slowest recovery since the 1870s, with GDP still 1.3 per cent below its pre-recession peak (the US, by contrast, is 5.6 per cent above). To this, the Tories will reply that the UK suffered a bigger crash than any other major country, with GDP falling by 7.2 per cent from peak to trough. But as Larry Summers told George Osborne at Davos last week, "The deeper the valley you are in, the more rapidly you are able to grow."

In 2010, a genuine recovery was underway, with the economy growing 2.4 per cent in the 12 months to Q3 2010, but premature austerity, in the form of the VAT rise and the dramatic cut in infrastructure spending, ensured that growth was snuffed out. To meet the OBR's original 2010 forecasts, the economy would need to grow by 1.6 per cent each quarter between now and the election. But Osborne has been the beneficiary of low expectations. Before the post-2010 downturn, below-trend growth of 1.9 per cent would have been viewed as a dismal failure. 

The broader concern remains, as Vince Cable suggested in his lecture last night, that this is the wrong kind of recovery, one too reliant on debt-led consumption and house price inflation, rather than exports and investment. Of the 0.7 per cent rise in output in Q3, 0.6 per cent came from the services sector, with construction actually declining by 0.3 per cent. And, of course, contrary to what the Tories claimed last week, living standards are still falling, with prices (2 per cent) rising more than twice as fast as wages (0.9 per cent). So long as this remains the case, they will still struggle to rebut Labour's charge that this is a recovery for the few, not the many. 

George Osborne speaks on EU reform in London on January 15, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.