George Osborne should resist the temptation to run a lap of honour to celebrate his feat in falling just short of achieving the same level of national income chalked up in 2008.

Even the Chancellor himself admits that the basis for growth is so shaky that it cannot be take for granted.

There is some encouragement in manufacturing and construction — up 3.4 per cent and 5.1 per cent respectively over the past year.

But industrial output still languishes 7.7 per cent below its peak point, while the building industry lags 12.2 per cent behind its previous best.

Much of Britain’s stuttering recovery depends on consumer spending, built on a house-price boom, especially in London and the South East, that benefits existing property owners while pricing out younger people from the opportunity to buy their own home.

The government’s Help to Buy policy assists some would-be homeowners and stimulates housebuilding, but it does nothing for those locked out of the private housing market.

The contrast between homeowners and those struggling in the rented sector mirrors the gap between the City of London gilded elite and everyone else.

Excited shiny-faced media commentators who take government sunshine stories about an economic recovery at face value live in a different world from the majority of people whose pay and benefits have been frozen or worse since 2008.

Reduced income for people at the lower end of the scale has resulted in higher debts and rent arrears for many, as well as lower living standards — spending less on food, clothes, travel, entertainment and holidays — that have left their mark.

That is the reality for the many millions lectured regularly by well-heeled politicians to tighten their belts and live within their means.

Economic recovery will need to be more substantial, long-lived and, most crucially, evenly spread before working people feel any improvement in their personal circumstances.

The sight of the private banking system, which sparked the 2008 economic collapse, paying top staff seven-figure rewards and petitioning the government to allow bonuses of double their annual salaries should make most decent people spew.

It emphasises the sharp divisions at the heart of society, where greed trumps any idea of service and responsibility.

Labour leader Ed Miliband and his shadow chancellor Ed Balls are right to point out that “millions of hardworking people are still feeling no recovery at all,” but the policies they have rolled out so far would not change this.

If elected, they would press on with their austerity-lite agenda, including a pay freeze for public-service workers.

It will take more than abolition of the bedroom tax, a temporary energy price freeze and yet another “tough love” offer to jobless youngsters to constitute a real alternative to the conservative coalition.

Miliband is pushing David Cameron to agree to a televised general election debate between the three main party leaders, suggesting format changes — such as audience questions — to make it less formal.

The main problem with the 2010 general election debate was the wafer-thin policy differences expressed by the three party leaders, as illustrated by the “I agree with Nick” efforts to suck up to a nonentity enjoying his brief period of public trust and confidence.

Miliband could disregard the format entirely if he put forward popular policies that drew a clear line in the sand, such as public ownership of the railways and public utilities, between Labour and the coalition.