The Growth Gamble?

The reconfigured UK government, claims to have a 'massive mandate' to go for their obsession of economic 'growth'. This is actually very debatable. Many voters in the last General Election seemed attracted to policies of 'levelling up' (of the regions) and focusing on the environment (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/25/kwasi-kwarteng-denies-plans-to-relax-environmental-rules-in-push-for-growth). The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and a variety of other 'green' organisations see the current rush for growth is an 'attack on nature'. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer denies this, saying he merely wants to speed things up. It's, however, difficult to see many of his new provisions in a different light. The Chancellor is axing plans to reward farmers with subsidies for their environmental 'stewardship'. He now intends reverting to the EU system, where subsidies were simply linked to the size of the farm. The Chancellor is also creating 38 English (Scotland and Wales are outside this process) low-regulation 'investment zones'. He claims the 38 locations, in addition to being low tax, will have reduced bureaucracy ('red tape') to speed up planning processes etc. This speeding up of planning will probably, however, involve building on formerly protected areas. It's also likely to largely ignore any objections from local residents (as seems likely in renewed government support for fracking) or bodies like RSPB. 'Growth' itself is a tricky concept. The planet is finite and growth in one area, usually means a decline somewhere else. Most economic experts believe that a chronic lack of investment in technology and infrastructure, rather than 'red tape', accounts for the UK's sluggish growth.