2024 review: Some of the year’s big moments in eight charts
What a year 2024 was.
A massive election – well, two massive elections on either side of the Atlantic, and more elsewhere around the planet – followed by changes of government and plenty of economic milestones along the way. So let’s remind ourselves of some of the big moments of the year, in chart form.
We begin with the big economic picture. Growth. This time last year, the UK was (unbeknownst to us at the time) actually in recession. The news was only confirmed in the spring of this year, but for two successive quarters in the second half of last year, economic growth fell.
What’s equally intriguing is what happened next: a rapid bounce-back as gross domestic product increased by more than expected in the first two quarters of the year. Since then, it has tailed off markedly, causing some consternation in the Treasury.
Indeed, an initial estimate of 0.1 per cent growth in the third quarter of 2024 was revised down to zero growth – stagnation.
Still, interest rates are now finally on the way down. They were cut in August for the first time following the cost of living crisis, and are expected to fall further next year. However, the scale of those expected falls is considerably smaller now than before the Budget. Why? Because the government is planning to borrow and spend considerably more next year.
That wasn’t the only policy in the Budget. Alongside those increases in borrowing and spending, Chancellor Rachel Reeves decided to introduce some significant tax raises – chief among them a big increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions.
And while Labour insists this will not be visible on your pay check – and hence isn’t breaking their pre-election pledge – we will, as a nation, be paying considerably more in taxes as a result. Indeed, the tax burden, the total amount of tax incurred by the population as a percentage of GDP, is now heading up to the highest level on record. This is, it’s worth saying, a stark contrast with the costed measures Labour put in their manifesto.
*There were two general elections in 1974 – in February and October
That brings us to the election itself – an election in which Labour rode to an extraordinary landslide, winning more than 400 seats for the first time since the glory days of Tony Blair. It represented an immense comeback for the party, following such a drubbing in 2019. However, there are some important provisos to note.
Chief among them is the fact that the party won the smallest share of the vote of any winning party in the modern era. This was not a landslide victory in terms of overall popular support.
Among the issues that has resounded this year, both before the election and after, was migration. This time last year the data suggested that net migration into the UK had peaked at just over 750,000.
But then, last month, new data brought with it a shocking revision. In fact, the Home Office had both undercounted the number of people coming into the country and overcounted the number leaving. The upshot was a new figure: in fact 906,000 more people had entered than departed in the year to last summer. Not just a new record – a totally gobsmacking figure.
The vast, vast majority of that migration was not the “small boats” so much has been made of but legal migration, more or less equally divided between work and study. It was to some extent the consequence of the post-COVID bounceback and, even more so, changes in government policy as post-Brexit migration rules came into force.
Another issue which came to light throughout the year was something else: the leakiness of Britain’s sanctions regime with Russia. While government ministers like to boast about how this is the toughest regime on Russia in history, our analysis found that sanctioned British goods are routinely being shipped into Russia via its neighbours in the Caucasus and Central Asia.
In a series of investigations, we tracked how this carousel works for the trade of cars, which get sent to countries like Azerbaijan before being shuffled around the Caucasus and entering Russia via Georgia and other routes. But that same carousel is likely being used for equipment like drone parts and radar equipment. We know it’s being sent to Russian neighbours. We know it’s ending up on the battlefield. The data tells a stark story about the reality of the sanctions regime – and helps illustrate how Russia is continuing to keep its forces armed and equipped with components from the West.
Shares in The Magnum Ice Cream Company (TMICC) have fallen slightly on debut after the completion of its spin-off from Unilever amid a continuing civil war with one of its best-known brands.
Shares in the Netherlands-based company are trading for the first time following the demerger.
It creates the world’s biggest ice cream company, controlling around one fifth of the global market.
Primary Magnum shares, in Amsterdam, opened at €12.20 – down on the €12.80 reference price set by the EuroNext exchange, though they later settled just above that level, implying a market value of €7.9bn – just below £7bn.
The company is also listed in London and New York.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
Unilever stock was down 3.1% on the FTSE 100 in the wake of the spin off.
The demerger allows London-headquartered Unilever to concentrate on its wider stable of consumer brands, including Marmite, Dove soap and Domestos.
The decision to hive off the ice cream division, made in early 2024, gives a greater focus on a market that is tipped to grow by up to 4% each year until 2029.
Ben & Jerry’s accounts for a greater volume of group revenue now under TMICC. Pic: Reuters
But it has been dogged by a long-running spat with the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s, which now falls under the TMICC umbrella and accounts for 14% of group revenue.
Unilever bought the US brand in 2000, but the relationship has been sour since, despite the creation of an independent board at that time aimed at protecting the brand’s social mission.
The most high-profile spat came in 2021 when Ben & Jerry’s took the decision not to sell ice cream in Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories on the grounds that sales would be “inconsistent” with its values.
Unilever responded by selling the business to its licensee in Israel.
A series of rows have followed akin to a tug of war, with Magnum refusing repeated demands by the co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s to sell the brand back.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Sept: ‘Free Ben & Jerry’s’
Magnum and Unilever argue its mission has strayed beyond what was acceptable back in 2000, with the brand evolving into one-sided advocacy on polarising topics that risk reputational and business damage.
TMICC is currently trying to remove the chair of Ben & Jerry’s independent board.
It said last month that Anuradha Mittal “no longer meets the criteria” to serve after internal investigations.
An audit of the separate Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, where she is also a trustee, found deficiencies in financial controls and governance. Magnum said the charitable arm risked having funding removed unless the alleged problems were addressed.
The Reuters news agency has since reported that Ms Mittal has no plans to quit her roles, and accused Magnum of attempts to “discredit” her and undermine the authority of the independent board.
Magnum boss Peter ter Kulve said on Monday: “Today is a proud milestone for everyone associated with TMICC. We became the global leader in ice cream as part of the Unilever family. Now, as an independent listed company, we will be more agile, more focused, and more ambitious than ever.”
Commenting on the demerger, Hargreaves Lansdown equity analyst Aarin Chiekrie said: “TMICC is already free cash flow positive, and profitable in its own right. The balance sheet is in decent shape, but dividends are off the cards until 2027 as the group finds its footing as a standalone business.
“That could cause some downward pressure on the share price in the near term, as dividend-focussed investment funds that hold Unilever will be handed TMICC shares, the latter of which they may be forced to sell to abide by their investment mandate.”
Donald Trump has said he will be “involved” in the decision on whether Netflix should be allowed to buy Warner Bros, as the $72bn (£54bn) deal attracts a media industry backlash.
The US president acknowledged in remarks to reporters there “could be a problem”, acknowledging concerns over the streaming giant’s market dominance.
Crucially, he did not say where he stood on the issue.
Money latest: The cheapest days to travel by plane
It was revealed on Friday that Netflix, already the world’s biggest streaming service by market share, had agreed to buy Warner Bros Discovery’s TV, film studios and HBO Max streaming division.
The deal aims to complete late next year after the Discovery element of the business, mainly legacy TV channels showing cartoons, news and sport, has been spun off.
But the deal has attracted cross-party criticism on competition grounds, and there is also opposition in Hollywood.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Netflix agrees $72bn takeover of Warner Bros
The Writers Guild of America said: “The world’s largest streaming company swallowing one of its biggest competitors is what antitrust laws were designed to prevent.
“The outcome would eliminate jobs, push down wages, worsen conditions for all entertainment workers, raise prices for consumers, and reduce the volume and diversity of content for all viewers.”
File pic: Reuters
Republican Senator, Roger Marshall, said in a statement: “Netflix’s attempt to buy Warner Bros would be the largest media takeover in history – and it raises serious red flags for consumers, creators, movie theaters, and local businesses alike.
“One company should not have full vertical control of the content and the distribution pipeline that delivers it. And combining two of the largest streaming platforms is a textbook horizontal Antitrust problem.
“Prices, choice, and creative freedom are at stake. Regulators need to take a hard look at this deal, and realize how harmful it would be for consumers and Western society.”
Paramount Skydance and Comcast, the parent company of Sky News, were two other bidders in the auction process that preceded the announcement.
The Reuters news agency, citing information from sources, said their bids were rejected in favour of Netflix for different reasons.
Paramount’s was seen as having funding concerns, they said, while Comcast’s was deemed not to offer so many earlier benefits.
Paramount is run by David Ellison, the son of the Oracle tech billionaire Larry Ellison, who is a close ally of Mr Trump.
The president said of the Netflix deal’s path to regulatory clearance: “I’ll be involved in that decision”.
On the likely opposition to the deal. he added: “That’s going to be for some economists to tell. But it is a big market share. There’s no question it could be a problem.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024