UK in double-dip recession
The UK economy has returned to recession, after shrinking by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012.
A sharp fall in construction output was behind the surprise contraction, the Office for National Statistics said.
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of 2011.
Wednesday's figure is an early estimate and is subject to at least two further revisions in the coming months.
The ONS said output of the production industries decreased by 0.4%, construction decreased by 3%, and output of the service sector increased by 0.1%.
Some have questioned the validity of the ONS' figures, particularly on the construction industry, which has been volatile in recent quarters.
But Joe Grice, chief economic adviser to the ONS, said the construction data was based on a survey of 8,000 companies and had been carefully compiled.
Shortly after the data was released, the pound fell half a cent against the dollar to $1.6093, and half a cent against the euro to 1.2184 euros.
The UK economy was last in recession in 2009.
"It is clearly not good news, the missing link in the economy has been confidence," said Graeme Leach, chief economist at the Institute of Directors.
"These are relatively small falls, so we shouldn't be too alarmist.
"[But] regardless of the figures, it is the message that comes out to business - to be cautious - exactly when we want them to be a little more aggressive in terms of recruitment and investment."
Source : BBC
A sharp fall in construction output was behind the surprise contraction, the Office for National Statistics said.
A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of 2011.
Wednesday's figure is an early estimate and is subject to at least two further revisions in the coming months.
The ONS said output of the production industries decreased by 0.4%, construction decreased by 3%, and output of the service sector increased by 0.1%.
Some have questioned the validity of the ONS' figures, particularly on the construction industry, which has been volatile in recent quarters.
But Joe Grice, chief economic adviser to the ONS, said the construction data was based on a survey of 8,000 companies and had been carefully compiled.
Shortly after the data was released, the pound fell half a cent against the dollar to $1.6093, and half a cent against the euro to 1.2184 euros.
The UK economy was last in recession in 2009.
"It is clearly not good news, the missing link in the economy has been confidence," said Graeme Leach, chief economist at the Institute of Directors.
"These are relatively small falls, so we shouldn't be too alarmist.
"[But] regardless of the figures, it is the message that comes out to business - to be cautious - exactly when we want them to be a little more aggressive in terms of recruitment and investment."
Source : BBC
More bad news again. Seems like the numbers that came in are far worse than expected.
I wonder who they will blame this time round..... the unions? the bankers? the EU as usual?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Herr
More bad news again. Seems like the numbers that came in are far worse than expected.
I wonder who they will blame this time round..... the unions? the bankers? the EU as usual?
I wonder who they will blame this time round..... the unions? the bankers? the EU as usual?
The NHS, BBC, local libraries, leisure centres, bin collectors, education....- all to blame
Were we ever out of the recession in the first place?
I think Osborne will be hiding in his caravan eating a pastie after reading this.
To be honest... Meh.
Original post by The_Male_Melons
Were we ever out of the recession in the first place?
Were we ever out of the recession in the first place?
Technically yes but in reality no and probably it will remain with recession like conditions for time to come.
Original post by HighestKungFu
I think Osborne will be hiding in his caravan eating a pastie after reading this.
Hopefully from Greggs
Original post by Keckers
People should stop pretending that bailing out the banks and cutting a few public services is going to magically solve everything. It was a problem caused by government and it sure as hell isn't going to be fixed by any government action.
We're in this for the long run.
We're in this for the long run.
You're a cretin.
Labour were in the process of fixing it by heavily investing in growth unlike the con-dems.
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
Original post by Jeester
You're a cretin.
Labour were in the process of fixing it by heavily investing in growth unlike the con-dems.
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
Labour were in the process of fixing it by heavily investing in growth unlike the con-dems.
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
Y u no understand that keynesian economic theory no work so good?
Yes, they artificially inflated the market for a while, at the same time running a huge deficit that future generations would need to pay off.
The banks would collapse, money would have been lost, and new and adaptable systems would have replaced them. Throwing lots of money into the banks, with no stipulation as to what this cash should be spent on either, is frankly moronic and far more damaging to the long term economy.
GDP's an awful measure of growth. Not that the other measures are much brighter, but it's so horribly flawed. If the government borrowed another 100bn and spent it all on lollipops and condoms, GDP would grow. But that's not real growth. Grwoth comes through innovation and technology (that is, being able to produce more using the same resources, either by technological improvements or by thinking about production in a different way [ie 'innovation' is not just a buzz word, it actually means something]). This hasn't happened yet, and it also shows that measuring GDP over the course of months is useless. These things take years and years to materialise.
Employment is a far more useful measure of the health of the economy. Not that that's barnstorming, but we should at least look at the correct data.
Employment is a far more useful measure of the health of the economy. Not that that's barnstorming, but we should at least look at the correct data.
Original post by Jeester
You're a cretin.
Labour were in the process of fixing it by heavily investing in growth unlike the con-dems.
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
Labour were in the process of fixing it by heavily investing in growth unlike the con-dems.
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
You're a fool.
Heavily investing in growth? What does that even mean? It's just a euphemism for paying for today's debt with tomorrow's debt to achieve short term political aims.
The banks needed to fail, all that has happened is that the banks now know that government will socialise any losses they make in the future; as a result the government is having to regulate them more heavily, which makes the banking industry more cumbersome and less efficient and gives a poorer deal to us, the customers. If the banks had failed then we'd have a new system in place which would know they would be held accountable for not costing risks appropriately.
Original post by Jeester
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
While I will give it to you that the banks needed a bailout at the time they received it....... but only your former Liebour gave out a bailout that came with almost zero conditions... you call that good policy?
What a load of rubbish.
Original post by Keckers
People should stop pretending that bailing out the banks and cutting a few public services is going to magically solve everything. It was a problem caused by government and it sure as hell isn't going to be fixed by any government action.
We're in this for the long run.
We're in this for the long run.
Precisely
Original post by Keckers
You're a fool.
Heavily investing in growth? What does that even mean? It's just a euphemism for paying for today's debt with tomorrow's debt to achieve short term political aims.
The banks needed to fail, all that has happened is that the banks now know that government will socialise any losses they make in the future; as a result the government is having to regulate them more heavily, which makes the banking industry more cumbersome and less efficient and gives a poorer deal to us, the customers. If the banks had failed then we'd have a new system in place which would know they would be held accountable for not costing risks appropriately.
Heavily investing in growth? What does that even mean? It's just a euphemism for paying for today's debt with tomorrow's debt to achieve short term political aims.
The banks needed to fail, all that has happened is that the banks now know that government will socialise any losses they make in the future; as a result the government is having to regulate them more heavily, which makes the banking industry more cumbersome and less efficient and gives a poorer deal to us, the customers. If the banks had failed then we'd have a new system in place which would know they would be held accountable for not costing risks appropriately.
Well said!
Original post by Jeester
You're a cretin.
Labour were in the process of fixing it by heavily investing in growth unlike the con-dems.
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
Labour were in the process of fixing it by heavily investing in growth unlike the con-dems.
The banks needed bailing out, do you know how much money they create for services industry? A lot.
Labour have never fixed anything, ever...investing in growth by borrowing money which we can't pay back sounds a tad unrealistic, in the end you can effectively blame the whole thing on the shambles labour left the country in... if only the tories hadn't started going downhill so badly that labour was let in in the first place, admittedly it's nice to have the NHS...but is it realistic, and then selling our gold reserves ...at a stupidly low price i think cash my gold would have given us more... then what has become a shambles of an education system...then onto your banks comment... you understand what competition is right? if the banks were left to collapse which many would have, then the banks that were left would've been the ones to finally act right and made smart decisions, instead of bailing them out and let them make the same mistakes by not regulating them properly...
Original post by Steezy
It's been planned or years. I don't understand why everyone's so surprised tbh.
hahaha..since 2008?
Original post by Ocassus
Y u no understand that keynesian economic theory no work so good?
Yes, they artificially inflated the market for a while, at the same time running a huge deficit that future generations would need to pay off.
The banks would collapse, money would have been lost, and new and adaptable systems would have replaced them. Throwing lots of money into the banks, with no stipulation as to what this cash should be spent on either, is frankly moronic and far more damaging to the long term economy.
Yes, they artificially inflated the market for a while, at the same time running a huge deficit that future generations would need to pay off.
The banks would collapse, money would have been lost, and new and adaptable systems would have replaced them. Throwing lots of money into the banks, with no stipulation as to what this cash should be spent on either, is frankly moronic and far more damaging to the long term economy.
I'm pretty much certain the austrian theory has this recession's causes explained well enough, the austrian solutions however, would make things worse. If the state had never caved in to corporate welfare and undertaken the private profits and socialised loses idea, then we would be better off.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How likely is a severe recession?
- Dominant gene
- Too much dobule cream - what to use it in
- Possibility of doing a BTEC extended diploma in one year
- MSc Ospap or Pgdip ospap
- how to prove that a recessive allele is NOT sex-linked?
- MSc Psychology
- Big Brother 2023
- Studying dietetics/nutrition
- Britain’s universities are in freefall – and saving them will take more than funding
- Double degree in psychology and criminology?
- Biology
- BTEC university's
- Clearing - Warwick
- Hello, has anybody studied the an online psychology masters in Uk
- ocr a level bio help
- Paper 4 physics
- Should i do my epq on the 2008 financial crisis?
- What is a phenotype
- Number of DNA molecules containig these two genes in each cell
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
