Austerity blues or going for growth?

20 10 2010

The discussion dominating public debate about how far and how fast we should be cutting the fiscal deficit is a giant displacement activity, which has dangerous consequences. The real problem facing the UK, and other western countries, is how to regenerate economic growth.

Whenever there is a sharp economic recession,  governments respond by artificially stimulating demand in the economy, through increasing public spending, interest rate cuts or tax cuts. Once the crisis starts to recede these emergency measures are gradually withdrawn. Almost all of the current public debate about the economy is about the speed of withdrawal of the stimulus. Nobody knows what the right speed is so this one will run and run, at least until the economies are back to normal.

However, it is what constitutes normal in this regard that we should be most interested in. Most western economies have seen real economic growth rates stagnate over a long period of time. Indeed it is this very stagnation which helped to fuel the spectacular credit boom that ended, at least temporarily, two years ago.

There are two ways in which the current preoccupation on cutting the fiscal deficit is dangerous. One is economic and one is social. The economic danger is that by focussing on public spending cuts we are ignoring the need for the state to actually invest far more in key areas of the economy than is the case now. The state plays a pivotal role for example on giant infrastructure projects which private business shies away from. In the UK this includes amongst other things new roads, railways and nuclear power stations. An obsession with cutting public spending does not create an atmosphere which is very conducive to more long-term spending commitments. Indeed it is often the longer term projects which get cut first as they have a smaller political constituency to offend.

The social danger is that the focus on cutting public spending is incredibly divisive and demoralising. Most people in the UK are now indignant either about how far their benefits are going to be cut, or why the benefits of others are not being cut more. While this creates short-term divide and rule advantages for the government, as people are blaming each other for what is going on, it has longer term dangers. An introverted obsession with minor changes in universal benefits or the funding of education does not help us address the bigger problem of how to inject a shot of dynamism into the UK economy. We are not yet asking the right questions about the future of the UK. If all our energies are devoted to holding on to meagre state benefits, rather than working on the bigger prizes that real economic growth can bring, then there can only be more stagnation to come.

*This blog also appeared in The Independent

** I will be chairing a debate on this subject at The Battle of Ideas next week

Advertisements




Are we all co-operative now?

5 10 2010

The co-operative movement has been around in one form or another for centuries, both in the UK and elsewhere. Its heyday was in the late 19th and early twentieth century and it now plays only a peripheral role in modern life. The most generous estimate of ‘employee owned businesses’ is stable at around 2% of GDP. Why then has there recently been a sudden resurgence of interest in common ownership?

In the past, small producers and working class people joined together in producer and consumer co-operatives to defend their interests in the face of a chaotic capitalist system dominated by big business. In addition, common ownership was seen by some as part of a peaceful and gradual move from the market to a more socialised economy. Even today the Co-operative Party, as an ally of the Labour Party, returned 28 MPs to the current parliament under the joint title of Labour and Co-operative candidates, including Ed Balls, one of the defeated leadership candidates.

But the current enthusiasm for common ownership does not come from those sectors of society who have traditionally seen common ownership as some kind of limited defence against capitalism, but rather it comes from within society’s elite. Indeed, even David Cameron is said to be keen on promoting common ownership as part of his ‘Big Society’. In other words, it is not a grassroots movement as it used to be, but more a top down strategy developed within the elite and proposed as part of government policy through state ‘empowerment’.

There are some critics who see some of the discussion of common ownership as an attempt to offload the responsibility for social provision from the state on to other sections of society. The proposals for more common ownership in the area of social services, for example, are in this view a cynical attempt to justify cutting state provision of social services as part of deficit reduction. While it is true that there is a congruence between arguing for a smaller state and the reduction of public spending it would be wrong to think that fiscal issues alone are at the heart of the common ownership revival.

The broader problem which common ownership proponents are trying to address is the overall loss of dynamism of British society and the consequent loss of authority of those who are running it. This  crisis of authority is most evident in politics but operates throughout society. It has prompted a search for new ways of engagement between leaders and led. The recession gave extra impetus to this but was not the initial cause.

The elites who run Britain are faced with a tremendously important paradox, that capitalism is both unpopular and unchallenged. Its unpopularity means that large sections of society oppose those elements of capitalist society which are the most positive, economic growth and human control over the environment. The fact that it is unchallenged, in terms of any alternative, leaves the mass of society powerless, passive and apathetic. The elite search for resolutions to these problems has created  pressure to find new ways to engage with and incorporate larger sections of a disaffected and cynical populace.

Workers control or shared sacrifice?

Does any of this matter when considering the pros and cons of more common ownership in our society? After all, arguing against the idea that people should have more ownership and control over their lives would appear perverse. What democrat could be against more democratic control?

 William Davies in his Demos pamphlet ‘Reinventing the Firm’, which focuses on the private sector, and Philip Blond, whose ’The Ownership State’ is about the public sector are the two weightiest contributors to the current debate. Davies argues that there are 4 interlinked reasons why common ownership has become important today:

1. The banking crisis

2. The longer term crisis of the UK economy

3. The crisis in public spending

4. The moral crisis of consumer capitalism

According to Davies these 4 crises all point towards a new model of social ownership.

Common ownership  can take many forms, with differing levels of ownership and control. The best known, John Lewis, has a structure which rewards staff out of profits, but offers only limited control over major decisions. There is some evidence that employees in firms with an element of common ownership identify more with the business and exhibit greater job satisfaction.

However, a major problem with private sector co-operatives from the employee point of view is that they offer no extra guarantee of stability or job security. Co-operative businesses enter the market in the same way as any business and are subject to the same market pressures and to the laws of profit. If they do not comply with these laws then the businesses will fail alongside their non co-operative competitors. This kind of failure was the fate of many of the workers co-operatives set up in the 1970s, such as the Meriden motor cycle cooperative formed out of the collapse of Triumph.

 Normal shareholders have the option of selling their shares if they sense the business is failing. Employees do not have that option. Employees may be better off without the extra worry that the equity they have in the business, along with their jobs, can disappear if the business fails. This is especially true if the ownership is separated from effective control of the company. The danger here is that shared ownership becomes shared sacrifice.

Should we be more co-operative in the public sector?

Philip Blond points to the advantages of common ownership in the provision of social provision as being better productivity and better services. He locates his argument within the context of a decay of civil society. In that sense his argument is attuned to Cameron’s view that the solution to the crisis in the public sector is the ‘Big Society’, the rebuilding of civil society as a buffer between the impact of the recession and the needs of ordinary people.

 Leaving aside for the moment the economic imperative for cuts in spending is there anything positive about the ‘Big Society’ in this regard?  There is something positive about community initiatives which bring together people to pursue local objectives, such as school improvements or community run nurseries for children. Calling this the ‘Big Society’ does not seem to me to make much difference. The people who do this will do it anyway and everybody else will continue their normal lives. The main way that this would change is if the provision of social services outside the state becomes a necessity, in other words if existing provision is taken away.

Any argument for changes in the way that social provision is made which begins from the premise that there will be less rather than more resources available would tend to  have an inherent austerity dynamic to it. Of course, just because something is cheaper does not necessarily make it worse. There is an inbuilt tendency for production goods, tvs etc, to get cheaper but without any loss of quality. Perhaps both businesses and services can become better and more efficient through the adoption of co-operative principles.

Measuring productivity in the public sector is a highly contentious issue. Philip Blond makes a lot of the Office of National Statistics’  estimate that productivity in the Public sector fell by 3.4% in the past 10 years compared with a rise of 27% in the private sector over the same period. Just quite how you measure or compare the productivity of a factory worker with that of a teacher escapes me. The commodities that a factory worker produces get cheaper because it takes less labour to produce them. Are we saying that a teacher should be judged by how much they can cut the time they put into their pupils, or a doctor into the general care of their patients for that matter?

This is of course where the plans to cut public spending come in. The danger is that if we buy into the co-operative model for social provision, how long before we are told that the old and infirm need to be looked after outside of state provision, or that community soup kitchens should feed the unemployed rather than them receiving unemployment benefit? Philip Blond offers some justification for this view when he argues that common ownership can compensate for low pay in the public sector. He also highlights the fact that voluntary carers save the treasury £87 billion per annum

The state provision of social services was the compromise outcome of a struggle between the aspirations of the working class for more security in their lives and the recognition by the ruling class that some measure of social welfare, usually provided at the cheapest possible level, was desirable for social stability and the maintenance of the workforce. The events of the past two years have shown yet again how easily capitalism can descend into chaos and how powerless individuals are to defend themselves when that happens. Common ownership is an attempt to paper over the huge problems that our society faces. It is a paternalistic policy which at best can only affect the fringes of our society whilst having no impact on the central problem, the stagnation of our economy and of our society.

*I will be debating the issue of co-operatives with Will Davies and others at this event





Can the market (or the government) deliver fast economic recovery?

1 07 2010

For the past 30 years, the economy has been driven by public sector, finance and housing. So what will take their place? The strict answer is that nobody needs to identify where future growth will come from — that is the whole point of a market economy. Provided the cost of money is low enough to provide cheap capital and ample incentives for entrepreneurship, new industries will arise to replace declining sectors.   Anatole Kaletsky in the Times

Kaletsky was writing prior to a day of discussion involving the government and the heads of 100 or so top UK enterprises on what needs to be done to revive the UK economy.  It is quite unusual in the UK for pundits to openly state their belief  in the power of the market, unaided, to bring strong economic growth. Bear in mind that the main growth area of the UK economy in the past 10 years was the public sector, not the private sector, funded by a combination of taxation of the financial bubble and debt.

Why should the market succeed now, when it has failed in the past? The conclusions of the top CEOs at the Times conference were summed as follows, what the UK needs are:

International tax competitiveness

Financial stability

Investment in infrastructure

Education and training for the low carbon economy

Deregulation and labour market flexibility

It would be hard to find a group of businessmen anywhere at any time who did not produce exactly this list of priorities. Lower wages, lower taxes and less red tape figure high on any businessman’s wish list. Of course, this begs the question of how the infrastructure projects and better educational standards also requested would be paid for, as infrastructure and education are almost always executed by governments and paid for out of taxation. Financial stability, given the interlinked nature of the world’s financial system, is not really within any government’s gift, as we have had amply demonstrated over the past two years.

The problem with this list is that it does not address the specific problems of the UK, and other western, economies. The question of what is going to provide the motor for growth in the UK economy, for example, is a question well worth asking. If the only answer is that the market will provide then we have cause for concern. As I and others have argued before, in the UK  market capitalism has proved to be heavily dependent on the state for its survival. In fact, one of the most positive things to come out of the discussion was George Osborne’s recognition that the UK government should be positively assisting sectors of the economy which show potential. This is in contrast to Vincent Cable who is going out of his way to say there should be no return to the 70s policy of ‘picking winners’.

On the question of infrastructure, it was disheartening to hear that the government has decided to axe the Infrastructure Planning Commission which was set up last year in order to shorten the planning process for large infrastructural projects. It appears to have become the victim of nimbyism from Tory MPS who fear that their rural constituencies will have nuclear power stations and high speed railway lines imposed on them. The coalition remains lukewarm at best about major infrastructural projects such as new nuclear power stations and high speed railways.

The government now claims that its fiscal austerity package will lead to more jobs rather than fewer over the next five years. Public spending cuts will lead to hundreds and thousands of job losses and inevitably weaken the economy.  It is taking a huge gamble that the private sector can pick up the slack. There is no evidence of any upsurge of entrepreneurialism or appetite for investment in new industries in the UK. If the state is not even prepared to take the lead in pushing through modernisation of the UK infrastructure, something which nearly always requires state coordination, it does not bode well for leadership in other areas of the economy.

Over the past two years economic issues have dominated politics in a way not experienced since the 80s. The world’s financial system has been shaken and the weakness of many western economies exposed. Despite all of this, what little debate there is on the economy remains rooted in the past. The only area for discussion appears to be whether fiscal stimuli should be withdrawn now or later, a rerun of the debates during the recession of the thirties. Yet we all know that the thirties recession was only finally resolved through the massive destruction wrought during world war 11, not through any economic policies.

*** This blog will be taking a break from now until the end of the summer ***





Osborne’s cuts, neither unavoidable or achievable

23 06 2010

So George Osborne has sent his message to the world’s financial markets. His insistence that the cuts announced in yesterday’s budget were ‘unavoidable’ was based mainly on the need to reassure international investors that the UK is still a safe place to lend money to ie we are not another Greece. But is Osborne’s austerity drive really unavoidable, and secondly, is it achievable?

Most of what was announced yesterday was about trimming public spending, through the wage freeze for public sector employees and taxing consumption by an increase in VAT.  No doubt this will bring some pain to many people but the real impact on public services is yet to come. So far there has only been a statement of intent to cut all government departmental budgets by 25%, bar the NHS and international aid. The full extent of where the real cuts are meant to fall awaits the outcome of a public spending review in the autumn. We are now in the position of a patient who is told to cut back on fatty food while we wait for the diagnosis of how many vital organs are going to be extracted.

There is a great deal of uncertainty even within the elite as to whether austerity is the best policy to pursue. The Financial Times has been full of articles throwing doubt on the wisdom of cutting public spending too hard at this point. Some of this has come from the normal doctrinaire keynesian suspects such as Robert Skidelsky, who believe that state spending should be staying up at this stage of the recession to boost demand, not down. 

But there are others who recognise that much of  what Osborne, with his Liberal free market colleagues, is doing is based on a  belief in a small state rather than through any financial imperative. Matthew Parris, for example, writing in the Times urged Osborne to drop the ‘unavoidable’ tag and argues

The Chancellor should not be embarrassed to say that he wants to wield the knife regardless of the deficit’s size.

Martin Wolf’s main fear is that with all of the western world, bar the US, committed to austerity it is hard to see where the opportunities for growth can come from. This gets to the heart of the problem facing the Con-Lib coalition. Drastically cutting the deficit only makes sense as a prelude to growth in the economy. Yet nobody is clear as to where this growth is going to come from. There are no obvious sectors within the UK economy poised for massive expansion. Neither is there an obvious market for UK exports, when the euro zone, currently the UK’s biggest export market, is itself in austerity mode. So, putting it crudely, we do not have enough to sell, and nobody to sell it to even if we did.

The government’s focus on supply side economics, freeing up the labour market and reducing the tax burden on private business, only works if it leads to greater investment and higher production. There is no sign of either of those things happening in the UK.

Are the cuts achievable? Ultimately this is not an economic but a political issue. Public services are heavily dependent on people. If 25% is to be cut then this will inevitably mean around the same proportion of public sector jobs going. The CIPD economist John Philpott estimates this will lead to 725,000 jobs being lost in the public sector. Comparisons are often made with the wage cuts and job losses that the private sector has experienced over the past two years, with very little opposition.

However the difference between the private and public sectors is that, if an engineer in Sheffield loses his job, this is a tragedy for him and his family. But outside of that nobody is affected. Even if the engineer’s firm is closed down, anybody wanting to buy a widget could go elsewhere. If a doctor loses her job, the same impact is true for her family, but also anybody who depended on her services will be affected as well. The vast majority of people cannot go ‘elsewhere’ for their health provision. How the austerity programme plays out will depend on how we all respond to the drastic decline in public services the government has lined up for us.

As I have argued before, the state plays such a central role in British society because capitalism is both too anarchic and too feeble to provide the goods and services that people need without state intervention. Dismantling the state looks like a bridge too far for the new coalition.





What cowboy put this fiscal deficit in?

9 06 2010

That Cameron and Osborne should blame the previous administration for the mess they have inherited is hardly a surprise. It should also not be a shock that Cameron is painting the future as black. He then has the dual advantage that if things turn out badly he can say he told us so and if they do not he can claim the credit for turning the economy round.

What is more interesting is that beneath the rhetoric there does seem to be a genuine belief that the state in Britain should be smaller and have less role to play in all aspects of life. In this respect Cameron has been aided by the addition to his ranks of a section of the Liberal Democrats who believe in the free market. Clegg, Cable, Huhne and the (now departed) Laws were the four LibDems appointed as ministers in the cabinet. All of them contributed to the ‘Orange Book’ in 2004 which espoused the free market as a solution to the problems of the economy and which provoked controversy within the LibDems.

Having come late to the free market philosophy, and at a time when most other politicians and economists were moving away from it, they have some of the fervour of  the convert. Cable in particular, whose formative experiences were in the 1970s when the UK government failed abysmally to prop up failing businesses such as British Leyland, is possessed of a fierce belief that the state has only a limited role to play in the economy. He has promised to overturn Mandelson’s nascent attempts at reviving an industrial policy for the UK.

So now the government has both pragmatic and quasi-ideological reasons for cutting public spending and reducing the size of the state. Pragmatic in order to avoid a collapse of the confidence in those lending money to the UK and quasi-ideological through the concept of the ‘big society’ rather than the ‘big state’.

The problem with this approach is that it flies in the face of the history of capitalism over the past 100 years. The role of the state, in every developed and developing country in the world, has come to play a bigger and bigger role as time has gone by. Outside of the aftermath of wartime no state of any consequence has succeed in cutting public spending absolutely. Certainly no state has managed to do so after a recession. Even under Thatcher, in the supposed brutal period of the 80s, public spending overall continued to rise.

Why is this? Essentially because the free market has proved incapable of fulfilling many different and essential functions of society. No modern state for example has ever had an education system which is run as a private business. No modern state has had an entirely private health system. Even in the US, which is most committed to the free market, state funding of Medicaid is an essential part of health provision. In addition, individual national insurance schemes have never been able to pay entirely for payments to the unemployed.

Private businesses depend  on the state to provide cheap education, health care and unemployment benefits. To some extent the role of the class struggle in earlier periods was important in establishing the levels of provision of benefits from the state, but the elite as a whole understood that the state needed to subsidise welfare in order for the economy to function effectively. It was not the post war Labour government, for example, which architected the welfare state in the UK but the National Government under the Conservative Churchill which did so through the production of the Beveridge report in 1942.

The state has also had a key role in the building and maintenance of transport and other key infrastructural projects, which are too big for any individual private company to develop but which all businesses benefit from. Roads are one good example of this, but virtually all communication systems and infrastructure projects require massive state involvement and investment in their production or maintenance.

It is also the case that the state is now so large and so intertwined with private business that many companies depend on government contracts. The IT business in the UK, for example, has benefited over the past twenty years from many large projects in the NHS and in other government departments.

There are those who argue that it is the increasing role of the state which has stifled private enterprise, but the reality is that without ever-increasing state involvement modern economies could not survive. Capitalism is too feeble and unproductive in most modern economies to operate on its own two feet without massive state assistance.

 So what does this mean for the present UK government’s plans to cut spending? Firstly they will struggle to make any impact on the overall scale of public spending without doing huge damage to the way our society works. Secondly, whatever their pretensions to the opposite, the axe will fall hardest on those least able to defend themselves.

A version of this article appeared on Spiked





Why austerity won’t work

2 06 2010

Before we all put on the hair shirt and make a virtue of cutting public services the question has to be asked, will it work? Will  cutting public spending help the UK economy to revive? Is austerity necessary to keep the creditors, in this case those who lend money to the UK government,  from the door? Or is there something else going on here?

To understand what is at issue here it is first of all necessary to separate out the question of government borrowing from the problems facing the rest of the economy. The current obsession with the government deficit is because the overall amount that the government has to borrow to finance its operations has grown as a proportion of the economy over the past two years. This is due to a widening of the public spending deficit, that is the gap between what the government raises in tax and what it spends.

The main reason there is a higher deficit is that the recession led to a drop in government revenue from tax. As the recession hit, less people paid income tax as they were unemployed or took pay cuts and companies were paying less tax on lower profits. So the immediate question is, now that the economy is coming out of recession why not wait until the public spending deficit narrows again? And why does public spending have to be cut instead of more borrowing to finance the gap until income balances expenditure again?

The answer to the last question is that it does not. There is no reason why the current level of the deficit is any more or less sustainable than a higher or lower figure. In the abstract there is no level of government debt which is unsustainable. In fact Japan for example has had a much higher ratio of government debt for many years than the UK economy has now without it leading to any kind of crisis. People only fear lending money if they do not think they will get it back. The doubts over the UK economy are whether it can grow fast enough to repay the debt.

The fear is that money markets will stop lending to the UK or raise interest rates on their loans to a point where they become unsustainable. But even this fear has to be tempered by the fact that the average length of loans to the UK government is 13 years. This means that only around 7% of the loans have to be rolled over each year and thus being open to hikes on interest rates. There is therefore no immediate danger of the UK government being unable to finance public spending at its current level, even if that means having to pay a higher rate of interest on a small portion of the debt.

So why the obsession with cutting the deficit? Given that the problem was created in the first place by a fall in economic output, would it not be better to focus instead on how to grow the economy back to the point where current public spending is sustainable again? This is where the real debate should be, and where the real problems lie.

Some people argue that public spending is so high that it ‘crowds out ‘ investment in the private sector. In other words that taxes taken from the private sector and spent by the government prevent real investment taking place. There are two problems with this argument.

The first is that there is no shortage on money in the private sector which could be used for investment. The UK’s private sector is swimming in money. Nor is there a shortage of labour, the other necessity for economic growth to take place. Chris Dillow makes the point that adding together all those who could be available for work the real number of unemployed in the UK  is closer to 6 million, and that does not include those who are on incapacity benefit mainly because they get more money. So if there is no shortage of labour and no shortage of capital why can there not be faster growth? This is a subject which we have looked at in detail in previous articles . But suffice it to say that the reasons have almost nothing to do with too much spending in the public sector.

The second problem is that there is a strong case to be made that, as James Heartfield has pointed out, such is the intertwined nature of the private and public sectors in the UK, that lower public spending is likely to impact negatively on the private sector rather than positively. Around £80 billion of government spending goes straight back out to the private sector in the form of government contracts. In addition, the state supports private industry in many ways, through transport, communications, training, education, health and even direct subsidies. In fact, the first round of public spending cuts last week fell heaviest on some of the schemes that Labour had brought in to help promising parts of the private sector.

In the absence of belief in, or any plan for, faster economic growth the focus inevitably turns towards saving. When George Osborne talks about retaining the confidence of those who lend money to the UK he means he shares their lack of confidence in his ability to grow the economy and therefore has to cut consumption instead. But let us not believe that cutting consumption is the only way forward. It is only so if you have no plan to increase production.





Why should anybody oppose public spending cuts, and how?

18 05 2010

Naturally, nobody welcomes having services they benefit from taken away. The bulk of public spending, about 63% of the total, goes on health, education, pensions and social security. Everybody at some time in their lives will benefit from these services. The problem is that the current  level of government spending can only be sustained either by borrowing more money or increasing taxation.

The government, and most economists, believe that borrowing more money would push the country even deeper in debt, which would worry  those who lend us the money so much that interest rates would soar. Eventually, according to this argument, the loans would dry up and we would be faced with default and have to be bailed out, like Greece, leading to even deeper cuts. While we await the specific details of the new government’s plans to tackle this problem it looks inevitable that it will involve a mixture of higher taxes and some cuts in public spending. (For a full treatment of the background to this approach see Sean Collins)

Given the way that financial markets work, looked at in this way it is quite a plausible scenario. So how should we think about what will be in effect an austerity budget that George Osborne , the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be producing in  a few weeks time? We could all simply take the view that we do not want our public services to be reduced at all.  It would certainly be a good thing if there was a more general opposition to austerity measures,  to any attempt to take this country backwards in terms of the quality of life.

However, in the absence of an intellectual case against the cuts, any such anti-cuts campaign will almost inevitably take the form of special case arguments, as has happened many times in the past. This can take many forms. A popular one is that management should be cut, not ‘shop floor’ workers. Another is that this or that other part of the state, usually defence or the civil service, should take the brunt of the cuts, rather than health, education or welfare. This approach does not oppose public spending cuts per se, but tries to divert them elsewhere. However this pans out, the result is job losses somewhere along the line and a net increase in human misery.

So is it possible, or even desirable,in the light of the undoubted economic problems facing this country, to make a case against public spending cuts per se?  Before we begin to answer this it is important to grasp one vital truth about public spending. All of it is financed out of the proceeds from private business, whether  industry or services,  through corporate or individual taxation. If these parts of the economy are struggling, as they are today, then the proceeds from taxation will stagnate. The current severe deficit problem was created because tax revenues fell in the past few years, not because public spending rose. While increased borrowing can make up for this increased deficit for a while, eventually the borrowing becomes too much and we are back in the Greece scenario.

So the real question about defending public spending is how to regenerate and revitalise the productive parts of the economy to the point where increased revenue from taxation, and therefore more public spending money, becomes plausible. That is why the most effective way of opposing public spending cuts is to argue for policies which encourage faster economic growth. Here is where we begin to part company with the government concensus about austerity. A key element of pursuing faster economic growth is for the state to invest more public money in science and technology education, in the encouragement of research and innovation and  in new infrastructure. This approach would involve some reorganisation and reprioritisation of public spending, away from consumption and towards investment.

Most importantly, the government must generate enthusiasm for a more dynamic economy and society. This would mean challenging the risk averse, pessimistic and therapeutic aspects of British culture. It would mean rejecting the view that economic growth should be green and sustainable, all code words for slow. It would mean restoring the pursuit of excellence as a goal of society and it would aim to bring out the best in people.