Figures produced on Friday by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that the UK's trade deficit for April was greater than March because of weakening manufacturing export.

Initially the estimated deficit was believed to be £9.6 billion; up from the £8.3 billion for March.

Given that there was a trade surplus of £7.1 in due to the services sector which, it should be remembered, is responsible for a whopping 80% of economic growth, this resulted in an overall deficit of £2.5 billion an increase of £1.4 billion from that in March (£1.1 billion).

However, the figure was revised upwards because of an omission by HM Revenues and Customs (HRMC) which, forgot to include £700 million of oil we exported to the EU.

So, taking into account the omission - I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when it was discovered and how this would be reported to George Osborne - the overall deficit for April reduces to £1.8 billion.

As many commentators are suggesting, the much-needed rebalancing of the economy we were promised is getting further away.

What is even more significant when you look at the figures is that any temptation that some may have to engage in  schadenfreude  in the sluggishness in the recovery of the EU is misplaced.

The EU is our largest trading partner and in April exports there rose by 1.3% to £12.4 billion.

The trouble is, though we sell to EU countries, we also buy goods from them and as a consequence the good deficit was £5.1 billion in April; up from £4.9 billion in March.

Until we are able to export more to countries outside the EU, especially the newly emerging economies we are reliant on the EU

For the record, the goods deficit with non-EU countries was almost £3.8 billion in April (up from £3.4 billion in March) and something of a disappointment on the gap of £3.1 billion which had been forecast.

It should be noted that trade deficits are nothing new; there has been one since 1998 due to the fact that we sell fewer manufacturing goods and though we still sell oil and gas, this has been deteriorating in the last twenty years.

Fascinatingly the countries with which we have the largest deficits are Norway, Germany, China, Hong Kong and Netherlands and those with the biggest surpluses are United States, United Arab Emirates, Australia and Saudi Arabia.

So, what does the data suggest?

It is worth mentioning that some commentators are questioning the veracity of the official data.

For example, Chris Williamson who is chief economist at Markit, a company which looks at purchasing managers' indices, believes that the data published by ONS are "in marked contrast" to what they are seeing on a day-to-day basis.

Undoubtedly the omission of the oil revenue won't increase confidence in ONS data.

However, the overall picture is that we don't make enough things that people here want to buy and which can be exported.

Domestically we are into recovery mode which means that everyone should be feeling better.

Though the national picture is inconsistent, it means that we are more likely to engage in consumer spending which, though good for retailers, means that more goods are likely to be imported.

Add to the mix the fact that the pound is strong by some ten percent over the last year which, though making imported goods cheaper, causes exports to be less attractive.

I suspect that nothing spectacular will happen in the next twelve months.

We are into general election fever and the incumbent government will want to maintain the 'steady as she goes' line.

After all, for many the trade deficit figures are hardly a 'bread and butter' issue and whilst they might otherwise have gained some headlines on the television news, the fact that Friday was, quite rightly, focused on the 70th anniversary of the D Day landings meant that they were barely mentioned.

So what can be done?

As we all know only too well, manufacturing is the key sector that needs to be supported and stimulated.

The trouble is, the putative recovery in this vital sector has come after years of decline and, among many senior politicians in Westminster during this period, at best indifference and at worst hostility.

As the expression goes, "we are where we are."

On Friday HMRC produced figures showing that exports from the West Midland are worth almost £28 billion and was the region with the highest year-on-year growth of 19.2%.

This is really great news but, of course, there should be even greater effort to return to a situation in which Birmingham and its surrounding area once again is recognised as the citadel of manufacturing in this country.

A couple of weeks ago  The Birmingham Post  ran an article concerning an exhibition of aerial photographs taken in the 1920s and 1930s.

If you get a chance, have a look at the associated website 'Britain from Above' which includes over 300 pictures taken over Birmingham.

The pictures taken some 90 years ago show are a city that is characterised by higgledy-piggledy buildings (some might argue that not much has changed!)

Central Birmingham was every much an industrial city thriving on its ability to draw in those with great ideas which could be made by the rapidly-developing skilled workforce employed in the myriad of workshops and factories.

However, the aerial pictures of the emerging suburbs suggest a city in transition and, notably, though showing the construction of roads and houses that are now so familiar, also include factories for companies that had outgrown their initial premises.

This was to be a trend that continued throughout though in the pictures of 1920s Birmingham, especially in the areas immediately outside the city centre, you can still see the chimneys of the workshops and factories that made Birmingham the so called 'city of a thousand trades'.

And because many of the pictures include really helpful annotation it is possible to identify the many manufacturers who operated in the city; most of which no longer exist.

One of the most poignant must be Wolseley Motors Tool and Motor Car Company which was based in Adderley Park and whose managing director was a certain Herbert Austin.

The story of Wolseley Cars is typical of auto manufacturing in the UK; investment was starved and expertise lost and we increasingly bought foreign imports.

I would happily accept that the world seemed very different almost a century ago.

Factories in Birmingham were, usually, owned by local people and relied on local labour.

We had a reputation Britain's for making things that the rest of the world marvelled at and would happily buy.

No problems in those days with trade deficits.

A century later it is very different and contemporary aerial photographs of Birmingham would find it much harder to identify the workshops and factories that ensured the city's reputation for engineering and manufacturing excellence.

Though we are seeing a re-emergence of Birmingham and the region as a place to make innovative products, we won't see manufacturing in Birmingham in the same was as a century ago.

This is not to say that we should expect our leaders to do everything possible to underpin and support a climate in which latter-day innovators and entrepreneurs see it as a place where their ideas can come to fruition and, it is hoped, be sufficiently produced to assist in improving the UK's trade deficit.

As we are seeing in the latest trade figures making things of real value is the only effective way to rebalance the economy.

The Birmingham Post has launched a free app for iPad and iPhone. Download it here.