Covid economy didn’t shrink as much and recovered quicker

Worth a mention, seeing as at the time, it was so gleefully tossed about as evidence of how truly awful a place the UK is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66680188

The UK economy made a stronger recovery during Covid at the end of 2021 than previously estimated, according to sharply revised official figures.
Data has now revealed that the economy was 0.6% bigger in the final three months of 2021 compared to pre-pandemic levels.
The previous figures said that the UK economy was 1.2% smaller.
…
The revised figures also show the pandemic lockdown collapse in the economy was smaller than thought in 2020, with output declining by 10.4% rather than 11%.
The recovery in 2021 was also faster with growth of 8.7% rather than 7.6%.
…
However, the upward revision could now mean that the UK economy is performing much better than Germany and is only just behind France and Italy when the ONS releases its latest figures.

[Jaymoss]

I think people think this country is such a bad place because all the political parties in the country are absolute morons. It could be a great country if it was managed better in a lot of aspects. Just look at how wonderful but mismanaged the NHS is for example.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

Worth a mention, seeing as at the time, it was so gleefully tossed about as evidence of how truly awful a place the UK is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66680188

It’s only a better place to live if people actually experience it.

Fractions of a percentage point here or there doesn’t change what was actually experienced by people during that time. GDP growth isn’t a meaningful measure for the workforce in the UK whose wages - often eroded by inflation - simply don’t keep up.

[tweetiepooh]

You could say that when you are scraping along the bottom you can't sink very far and any growth will be good percentage wise. (This is not my POV.)

[nomadking]

Strikes reduce GDP, which means that the underlying GDP is actually better than the figures represent.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Strikes reduce GDP, which means that the underlying GDP is actually better than the figures represent.

Imaginary GDP. You should join the ranks of CCHQ with that idea.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

Imaginary GDP. You should join the ranks of CCHQ with that idea.

What's imaginary about it? It the strikes weren't occurring, GDP would be higher. If you're trying to measure how the economy is performing, then only reasonable to consider artificial and temporary reductions. The rest of the non-striking economy is doing BETTER than the official figures suggest.
If strikes increased GDP, the media wouldn't stop mentioning that. Anything to paint a FALSE picture.

Labour and the Unions must gutted, that despite their actions, the economy isn't in recession.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

What's imaginary about it? It the strikes weren't occurring, GDP would be higher. If you're trying to measure how the economy is performing, then only reasonable to consider artificial and temporary reductions. The rest of the non-striking economy is doing BETTER than the official figures suggest.
If strikes increased GDP, the media wouldn't stop mentioning that. Anything to paint a FALSE picture.

Labour and the Unions must gutted, that despite their actions, the economy isn't in recession.

Equally if we had slavery, or an Empire from which to plunder resources, GDP would be even higher.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

What's imaginary about it? It the strikes weren't occurring, GDP would be higher. If you're trying to measure how the economy is performing, then only reasonable to consider artificial and temporary reductions. The rest of the non-striking economy is doing BETTER than the official figures suggest.
If strikes increased GDP, the media wouldn't stop mentioning that. Anything to paint a FALSE picture.

Labour and the Unions must gutted, that despite their actions, the economy isn't in recession.

Great that the dip was in line with our peers but worrying that the ONS's figures were wrong.

I don't think you can arbitarily exclude long-running strikes from the figures.

Nor do I think that Labour who are odds-on to form the next government next year favour a recession. Why? That makes little sense. Budgets are super tight (witness many councils going effectively bankrupt and ailing school buildings and bus cut backs) and the next incoming government needs as healthy an economy as possible to maximise its tax take.