Here we go again. The Bank of England has restarted its drumroll in preparation for a rate hike. Andy Haldane, the Bank’s chief economist, has joined the rate-risers, expanding their number to three. As a whole, the nine-strong committee stuck to its line that the miserable 0.1% growth in GDP in the first quarter was a weather-induced blip. Its view that momentum will recover in the April to June quarter was deemed to be “broadly on track”.

Financial markets got the message. The pound rose and the likelihood of a rate-rise to 0.75% in August is now priced as a 65% probability.

In outline, the Bank’s analysis is reasonable. It can point to surveys that show a strong bounce-back in household spending once the “beast from the east” went away. Employment is also rising, although wages aren’t following at the same pace. And, as it says, “the prospects for global GDP growth remain strong” even if the euro-area and a few emerging markets currently look soft.

Yet, come August, broad strokes of the brush won’t suffice. At a bare minimum, second quarter GDP would have to arrive at 0.4% to justify a rate rise. That was the forecast in the Bank’s inflation report in May. Anything less than 0.4% and the bounce-back narrative would look like a fundamental misreading of the health of the economy. Not everyone is convinced 0.4% is in the bag. “In our view, there is not enough evidence of a strong rebound in the data so far,” say Barclays’ economists. They may have the bleak numbers from the construction and manufacturing sectors in mind.

The Bank, then, has talked itself into yet another test of its forecasting ability and the second-quarter GDP numbers, to be released at the end of July, are suddenly a big deal. February’s drumroll was even louder before the Bank was obliged to delay the rate rise it plainly wants. A repeat performance would not look good.

Dixons and Carphone – no longer a merger of equals

Back in 2014, Dixons and Carphone Warehouse declared theirs was a “genuine” merger of equals. In the sense that each set of shareholders got 50% of the combined company, it was. But only one side of the business is vaguely pulling its weight these days.

Here’s new chief executive Alex Baldock on Thursday on what’s happened to returns from selling mobile phone contracts in the UK and Ireland, Carphone’s main contribution to the whole: “A business that was making in excess of £100m will be barely profitable this year.” As recently as 2016, the split between electricals (the Currys and PC World chains from Dixons) and mobile was roughly even.

The causes of Carphone’s calamities are well-known. Consumers are upgrading their handsets less often and, even when they do, they are less interested in the pre-pay deals that are Carphone’s specialism. Meanwhile, the chain is locked into contracts with the big mobile networks that require it to hit volume targets. And the boost from the demise of rival Phones 4u, which also happened in 2014, is now lost in the wash. Baldock, like predecessor Seb James, is attempting to reinvent the model by negotiating new contracts with EE, 02 and Vodafone but only an optimist would predict old levels of profitability can be restored.

There are two morals to the tale. First, the excitable merger talk about how Carphone’s mobiles would soon be “talking” to Currys fridges was guff: the commercial arrangements with mobile networks were always far more important. Second, Carphone’s Sir Charles Dunstone got the better end of the deal. The combined group’s share price has fallen 40% since the merger but Carphone, if it had continued in standalone form, would be in even deeper trouble today.

WPP gets some free advice from Martin Sorrell

Down in Cannes, Sir Martin Sorrell was in chatty mood – just not about the reason why he resigned from WPP in April.

Instead, after complaining about rough treatment from the board of the advertising and marketing giant, he riffed on who should replace him as chief executive. Mark Read and Andrew Scott, currently doing the job jointly on a temporary basis, should get the gig permanently, he said. They would be “a very powerful and potent combination”, he argued.

The chances of a joint appointment happening are roughly zero. Having two chief executives is asking for trouble and shareholders usually hate the idea. In any case, WPP has already said it won’t go down that route. Sorrell is making mischief.