Strong services data for July indicates health in the sector

The services PMI for July came in at 60.2.

Market Economics has released the purchasing managers' index data for the services sector in the month of July. It shows a sharp increase in activity in the sector, dominant in the UK economy: the index stands at 60.2, well above the 57.2 forecast. It is the best growth services have seen since 2006.

The PMI is compiled from data contributed by purchasing managers across Britain, and values of above 50 represent increasing growth in the sector, while values below represent increasing contraction. A value of 60.2 thus represents extremely strong growth for the services sector; and, given the strength of that sector in the national economy, bodes well for overall growth in the third quarter of 2013.

The below chart shows quite how high the reading was, and also how well the PMI data – an incomplete but speedy measure based on survey data – tracks the ONS's official estimate of the sector.

Today's release follows that of the PMIs for the construction and manufacturing sectors, each similarly strong. The former came in at 57.0, up from 51.0 in June, while the latter came in at 54.6, up from 52.9 the month before. Both of those figures represent the fastest growth in their sectors for years, and indicated that the slump is well and truly coming to an end. Markit's chief economist, Paul Smith, says that the service sector "appears to have genuine momentum". "Although an early call on one month's data," he adds, "the forward-looking elements from the survey point to a further strengthening of GDP in Q3 as the UK heads towards 'escape velocity' and self-sustaining economic expansion."

Those forward-looking elements include measures of backlogs in orders, as well as questions of business confidence. Backlogs, which indicate pressure on companies to expand their production, had the sharpest rise since February 2000, and have now risen four months in a row. Business confidence also strengthened, to its highest level for over a year, although that still leaves it well below even the burst in optimism immediately following the recession, let alone the typical sensibility in the mid-2000s.

The pound saw a slight boost following the release of the news, rising against the dollar from 1.532 to 1.535.

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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the Conservatives lost the argument over austerity

After repeatedly missing their deficit targets, the Tories can no longer present spending cuts as essential.

“The age of irresponsibility is giving way to the age of austerity,” declared David Cameron at the Conservatives' 2009 spring conference. Fear of spending cuts helped deny his party a majority a year later, but by 2015 the Tories claimed vindication. By framing austerity as unavoidable, they had trapped Labour in a political no man's land. Though voters did not relish cuts, polling consistently showed that they regarded them as necessary.

But only two years later, it is the Conservatives who appear trapped. An austerity-weary electorate has deprived them of their majority and the argument for fiscal restraint is growing weaker by the day. If cuts are the supposed rule, then the £1bn gifted to the Democratic Unionist Party is the most glaring exception. Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, sought to justify this largesse as "investment" into "the infrastructure of Northern Ireland" from "which everybody will benefit" – a classic Keynesian argument. But this did not, he hastened to add, mean the end of austerity: "Austerity is never over until we clear the deficit."

Britain's deficit (which peaked at £153bn in 2009-10) was the original and pre-eminent justification for cuts. Unless borrowing was largely eliminated by 2015, George Osborne warned, Britain's public finances would become unsustainable. But as time has passed, this argument has become progressively weaker. The UK has cumulatively borrowed £200bn more than promised by Osborne, yet apocalypse has been averted. With its low borrowing costs, an independent currency and a lender of last resort (the Bank of England), the UK is able to tolerate consistent deficits (borrowing stood at £46.6bn in 2016-17).

In defiance of all this, Osborne vowed to achieve a budget surplus by 2019-20 (a goal achieved by the UK in just 12 years since 1948). The Tories made the target in the knowledge that promised tax cuts and spending increases would make it almost impossible to attain – but it was a political weapon with which to wound Labour.

Brexit, however, forced the Conservatives to disarm. Mindful of the economic instability to come, Philip Hammond postponed the surplus target to 2025 (15 years after Osborne's original goal). Britain's past and future borrowing levels mean the deficit has lost its political potency.

In these circumstances, it is unsurprising that voters are increasingly inclined to look for full-scale alternatives. Labour has remade itself as an unambiguously anti-austerity party and Britain's public realm is frayed from seven years of cuts: overburdened schools and hospitals, dilapidated infrastructure, potholed roads, uncollected bins.

Through a shift in rhetoric, Theresa May acknowledged voters' weariness with austerity but her policies did not match. Though the pace of cuts was slowed, signature measures such as the public sector pay cap and the freeze in working-age benefits endured. May's cold insistence to an underpaid nurse that there was no "magic money tree" exemplified the Tories' predicament.

In his recent Mansion House speech, Philip Hammond conceded that voters were impatient "after seven years of hard slog” but vowed to "make anew the case" for austerity. But other Tories believe they need to stop fighting a losing battle. The Conservatives' historic strength has been their adaptability. Depending on circumstance, they have been Europhile and Eurosceptic, statist and laissez-faire, isolationist and interventionist. If the Tories are to retain power, yet another metamorphosis may be needed: from austerity to stimulus.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496