LANDMARK research published by the Institute of Economic Affairs has found that the British public overwhelmingly support economic growth. Eighty-seven per cent say the country should focus more on growth, against only 9 per cent saying the country is already wealthy enough. This is a consensus that holds across all age groups, income levels, regions, and political affiliations, clearly demonstrating the public’s lack of appetite for climate alarmist ’degrowth’ narratives.
The vast majority oppose the ‘de-growthers’ – those who think growth does more harm than good (particularly to the environment and the underprivileged), that conveniently justifies ‘environmental’ and social justice agendas. Although de-growthers tend to be radical leftists, growthers are not partisan, the survey suggests.
No wonder perhaps that all political parties claim to prioritise growth. Indeed, the Labour Party, despite its woke and Net Zero madness, has repeatedly (since the general election campaign in 2024) promised growth as its ‘number one priority’. None of the parties, however, commits to the dramatic changes required, most of which involve constraining the State’s growth. Total public spending (Total Managed Expenditure) in the UK is expected to be around £1,370billion in 2025-26, which equates to roughly £48,000 per household, up £6,000 per household since 2024. Which is ridiculous.
Both governing political parties have been and are guilty of massively over-regulating growth-making activities while throwing endless money at the far less productive state sector for what’s perceived to be social and environmental justice.
The trade-offs are stark. Indeed, they are vicious circles.
Take mandated Diversity Equity and Inclusion directives. (Anti-discrimination laws make its principles legally necessary.) This means that DEI officers discourage certain demographics (inevitably whites, males, heterosexuals) from applying for jobs – even military and police jobs – regardless of merit and indeed competence. Those same officers are paid ridiculous salaries that are not available to fund productive workers.
Similarly, the path to Net Zero relies on taxing and regulating fossil fuels and subsidising alternative fuels, making energy more expensive in Britain than anywhere else. This in turn justifies more subsidies for those on benefits and not in work. Not of course to farmers, tradesmen, hauliers or other struggling private-sector workers. Taxation and entitlements transfer money from workers to shirkers (and, yes, the needy in-between). This discourages work – which justifies more benefits.
Just this week, a remarkably unthinking professor of economics welcomed rising fuel prices for encouraging people to choose public transport over cars and to reduce consumption generally. Unaware of or uncaring about the impact of fuel inflation for business. Consistently, he recommended that the government should pay ‘compensation’ directly to needy drivers. Such is the madness normative in academia, which helps to explain why you are unlikely to see such a survey produced by an academic institution. It took the independent Institute of Economic Affairs, Britain’s oldest free-market think tank, long persecuted by the aggressive left for its ‘right-wing’ focus, to commission the right subject, and Freshwater Strategy to ask the right questions.
And note that no political party commissioned this study. Not the Conservatives and not Reform UK.
Politicians (not just those in government) are motivated to avoid what people think about growth for two principal reasons.
First, they struggle to argue for one virtue at the expense of another – for economic growth at the expense of environmental or social justice, or for personal responsibility at the expense of welfare. Second, politicians are buying votes. The shirkers are voting for hand-outs. And once hand-outs are institutionalised, cutting them is more difficult than refusing to grant them, because now people would be losing not just a prospect but an expectation (the loss aversion bias).
But here’s the most shocking insight from the latest survey.
Politicians are not the only problem. Most Britons are equally problematic. How can this be, if almost nine in ten want growth? Well, a majority, the same survey shows, support anti-growth policies. Worse, most don’t understand how to achieve growth. Most, the survey shows, contradict themselves in their understanding of markets. This is what three decades of educational capture by the left has achieved.
Most Britons concur with ‘market-led’ explanations for Britain’s lack of growth, including high energy costs (85 per cent), high taxes (75 per cent), trade barriers (74 per cent), too much red tape (74 per cent), employment laws (64 per cent), and planning laws (55 per cent). And most support some market-oriented reforms, including reducing energy costs (77 per cent), cutting taxes on workers (72 per cent), and cutting taxes on businesses (66 per cent).
So far, most Britons look like Thatcherites.
Yet most Britons agree with anti-market explanations for low growth: wages being too low (78 per cent), lack of investment in public services (77 per cent), companies prioritising profit (73 per cent), and the political system being rigged in favour of the wealthy (72 per cent). These contradictions cannot be explained simply as conflicted ideals, or indecisiveness, or cognitive dissonance.
Economic illiteracy is a real problem.
When asked what GDP growth means, one-third (32 per cent) of respondents said they were unsure or did not know. Only 8 per cent chose correctly (‘amount of money generated / national wealth’). But perhaps even that isn’t the most shocking part. The survey shows that most Britons are unaware how dire the situation of their country is. Though dissatisfied with its economic performance, most mistakenly think Britain is doing better than its peers.
Two-thirds (67 per cent) say the country is going in the wrong direction, while just 21 per cent say the opposite. Additionally, 65 per cent rate the UK economy as poor; 46 per cent believe it is contracting. And 40 per cent believe the UK economy has ‘no main strengths’. Nonetheless, a majority wrongly believe that the average person in the UK is as rich, or richer, than those in Australia, Singapore, Germany, much of Western Europe, and most states in America. Britons think the UK is poorer than only seven of the 50 American states. In reality, the UK is poorer than all 50 states.
When told this, 27 per cent of respondents said they were shocked, and a further 15 per cent expressed disappointment or embarrassment.
Focus group participants responded to this revelation with anger and frustration: ‘It suggests that there needs to be change in the UK because we can’t be 51st, there’s no way,’ said one.
State education has done a terrible job of educating Britons about economics (and politics, and society, and history – I could go on). Standards have got progressively worse, demonstrated by the fact that young Britons are most disconnected from economic reality.
So improved schooling would help, but that is only possibly if it abandons left-wing ideological bias and its ‘all must have prizes’ mentality.
Politicians could, in theory, correct the public’s economic illiteracy. But a large number would need to correct their own literacy as well as economic literacy. The current band are unlikely to articulate how the civil service has become bloated, work-shy, well-paid, and partisan. We have to hope the 2029 intake will.
Helpfully, Britons have already soured on Net Zero. An overwhelming 78 per cent support keeping energy prices affordable, even if it slows progress towards Net Zero. A majority (57 per cent) believe growth should take precedence, even if it causes environmental damage, compared with 37 per cent who prioritise environmental protection. How would those figures change if it was shown Net Zero policies cause as much or more environmental damage, or that man-made global warming was a myth?
Realism on the economic trade-offs inherent to Net Zero could be leveraged to promote realism on the economic trade-offs inherent to social justice too.
But British politicians and mainstream media must stop dumping on America as the source of all Britain’s problems and start looking West for solutions if we are ever to get growth and prosperity back.
Thatcher faced just such challenges in the 1970s (without the nightmare of Net Zero orthodoxy); Trump is facing them now. Thatcher succeeded in changing Britain’s political culture and building an electoral mandate. It can and has to be done again.
Where is Thatcher’s equivalent today?
