Typical BBC revisionism - you would think that the deficit didn't exist prior to 2008. A deficit created by people who believed "fair" meant "some people work and the rest live off them".
The structural deficit in its present form existed prior to 2008, therefore anyone who says it was caused by the bank bailout is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. What was the deficit in 1997?
No, services are indeed an economic activity. Just that I don't see service reliant economies as sustainable in the long term. They are all in debt, and always were working into debt, unlike traditional industrial societies, which have better track record. And along those lines, it is unfair to complain about high degree of welfare dependency: not everyone can work in the City, and there's only so much pipework to be fixed for plumbers.
If you know of a good one, please point me to it. I would like to be proven wrong here, and educate myself.
Service economy sounds wrong superficially, and doesn't have clear, satisfactory explanation when you dig into details either. I feel the major reason why it is cited as future is that it's the way society drifts to at the moment. That, coupled with their actual underperformance, is what pushes me to this, apparently unpopular, conclusion.