Yes, I think so. It's total per capita, so if the rich have made gains (which they have) the figure will mask the extra losses of the poor. There is less in the pot and the rich have more of it.

Brown bailed the banks out. Cameron blamed the banking crisis for all his woes, when the reality was that it was mostly sorted under Labour.

Usually a so-called dead cat strategy or other distraction is employed instead.

Less extreme (at least in one sense) is complicit or embargoed media organisations deliberately not reporting on failures, perhaps only telling part of the truth, but why do that when you can haul out the old reliable: Celebrity News!

Everyone loves and wants to hear about celebrities! Even Z-list ones! Don't look at politics! That pop star you've barely heard of who might not resemble or align with the ruling class in some way has been arrested for something or other and this is the top headline tonight!

Or look over there! That politician you don't like is taking part in a celebrity game show where they might have to do something almost as unpleasant as they are! (This has happened at least twice.)

Like?

The figures are not showing any gains from the effects of Truss.

... followed by an inflation shock from a jump in the price of imported fuel and commodities, due to an actual war between two European countries - something that literally none of the other prime ministers on that list had to deal with.

Sunak's government is awful and deserves to be ejected from office in a landslide - but it hardly helps (and possibly even undermines) the case against them to pretend that what has happened to household real incomes this Parliament isn't overwhelmingly due to factors way outside of their control.

How has this affected the economy. He borrowed the money and has paid absolutely nothing back. We are in more debt now than we were after lock down.