PMI data reinforces tale of three economies

Good, bad, worse in the US, UK and EU.

Today's Markit PMIs (standard reminder: purchasing managers at companies surveyed, aggregated into an index showing activity across the economy, normalised so that 50=no change) highlight the discrepancy between the Eurozone economy (still contracting, albeit less each month than it has been for the better part of a year) and the US economy (which is growing, and growing faster most months).

(Today's releases are the "flash" PMIs, compiled from the first 85 per cent or so of managers to respond; they are thus to be taken with a larger pinch of salt than normal)

The Eurozone composite PMI – covering services and manufacturing – rose slightly to 47.3. This is a nine-month high, but still represents moderate contraction of GDP:

 

Even worse is the manufacturing data. Again a nine-month high, it now stands at 46.3, and rose by just 0.1 from November.

Compare that figure with the US, where the manufacturing PMI showed a sharp increase to 54.2, signifying healthy expansion:

As ever, the UK data lies somewhere between the two:

The UK is undergoing a renewed bout of economic weakness as it heads towards the end of 2012. The all-sector Output Index from the three PMI surveys rose from 49.7 in October to 50.2 in November, edging above the 50.0 no change mark. However, despite the increase, the latest reading was the third-weakest since April 2009 and consistent with the economy sliding back into contraction after the temporary growth surge seen in the third quarter.

The UK data also highlights the folly of relying too much on the PMI information to predict economic performance, though. All through the double-dip recession, commentators were insisting, based on the strength of PMI data, that the ONS was mistaken. And even as it fell to new lows, the ONS recorded the massive growth of last quarter.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn fares well in his toughest interview yet

Labour will be relieved that Corbyn's encounter with Andrew Neil was less painful than Theresa May's. 

Jeremy Corbyn's half-hour BBC1 interview with Andrew Neil was the toughest grilling he has faced since becoming Labour leader. Neil sought to cause Corbyn maximum discomfort by confronting him with his past views on the IRA, NATO and Trident (which he never anticipated having to defend from his current position). 

"I didn't support the IRA, I don't support the IRA," Corbyn said in response to the first. After Neil countered that Corbyn "invited convicted IRA terrorists to tea in the Commons a few weeks after the Brighton bomb," the Labour leader replied: "I never met the IRA. I obviously did meet people from Sinn Fein" (a distinction without a difference, some will say). But after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, Corbyn is aided by the reduced toxicity of the subject (New Labour dealt with terrorists) and the fact that for some voters, the young most of all, "the troubles" are a distant memory.

NATO, Neil recalled, had been described by Corbyn as "'a very dangerous Frankenstein of an organisation', 'a danger to world peace'. Two years ago you said it should be 'wound up'." It is to Corbyn's credit, in some respects, that he struggles to disguise his sincere views, and he did on this occasion. "NATO exists," he observed at one point, eventually conceding after much prodding: "I will be a committed member of that alliance in order to promote peace, justice, human rights and democracy". But nearly 30 years after the end of the Cold War, the subject will seem esoteric to many voters.

Trident, however, is another matter. "My views on nuclear weapons are well-known," Corbyn correctly noted, making it clear that the Labour manifesto committed to full renewal against his wishes. "I voted against the renewal," he said. "Everybody knows that because I wanted to go in a different direction." That the opposition is divided on such a profound issue - and that Corbyn's stance is at odd with the electorate's - is undoubtedly a drag on Labour's support.

But under forensic examination, Corbyn emerged stronger than many predicted. There were few moments of intemperance and no disastrous gaffes. Corbyn successfully dodged a question on whether Labour would cut immigration by replying that the numbers would "obviously reduce" if more workers were trained. Indeed, compared with Theresa May's painful encounter with Neil last Monday, Corbyn's team will be relieved by his performance. Though the Labour leader cannot escape his past, he avoided being trapped by it tonight. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496