The helium-filled Airlander aircraft in a giant airship shed on February 28, 2014 in Cardington. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How to build an innovation economy

Backing tech, thinking global and reducing the tax burden for entrepreneurs will make Britain an economic world-beater once more.

The UK finds itself at a crossroads. With the economy now recovering strongly – as seen with buoyant GDP figures for Q1 on Tuesday – the dark days of the crisis might seem to be behind us. But as the Chancellor said in the Budget, we must face brute economic facts.

Though the view from the boardroom window on the top floor of UK plc may be sunnier, the continuing scale of the structural deficit effectively means there’s a fire in the basement. Despite very tough efficiency savings and cuts to rein in public spending, we are still running a serious deficit and accumulating debt. The rescue job is not yet complete.

Following the crisis, the key question of our time is how the UK can become the crucible of innovative approaches to public and private sector efficiency? I believe the only way we are going to get UK plc afloat again is through the power of innovation in both our public and private sectors to drive a new age of productivity and competitiveness.

First, we must continue to embrace the technological revolution to shake up existing markets. In tech, that means unleashing the power of the revolutions in IT and telecoms, digital media, genetics, data analytics and clean-tech solutions in energy, finding the twenty-first century’s equivalent of electricity or the invention of the internet, a new space race for the defining technologies of our age. As the Chancellor said in a landmark speech in Cambridge last week, it is about becoming the "best place to innovate".

We then need to think about how we innovate in terms of selling our products and services. Fundamentally, we need to turn our focus from the sclerotic eurozone to emerging markets. The western European nations are all grappling with the same structural weaknesses – and a currency and banking system weighed down in bad debts. We cannot afford to sit and wait for the eurozone alone to drive growth. We have to go and trade with the faster emerging markets, the BRICs and N11.

In my field of Life Sciences, for example, the emerging economies are driving vast new markets in food, medicine and energy. In food, we will have to double global food production with much less land, water and energy. In 30 years the exploding populations of these nations – who today need the basics of public health, nutrition and energy – will demand the modern biomedicines, Western foodstuffs and clean-tech that only their elites enjoy today. Far from giving up on emerging markets, such needs show why our exports are more sought after than ever.

To do that we need to make the UK the best place in the world to come and start a new business. That’s why for the last three years I've been advocating a "New Deal for New Business": if you’re starting or growing a small business, employing people and generating sales turnover, government should get off your back. No employers' National Insurance – a jobs tax. No VAT – a value tax. No regulations designed for big companies.

During the 15 years I worked in start-up venture capital, I was always struck by how many first-time entrepreneurs underestimated their turnover, and spent vast amounts of time and stress and accountants fees worrying about complying with government bureaucracy. Get off their backs and let them grow and we’ll find that they hit the threshold for tax that much quicker. Such a policy would be simple, clear and potentially revolutionary in its effect.

This Parliament has been about saving the UK from becoming another Greece. The next Parliament will be about making Britain an economic world-beater once more – investing, exporting and manufacturing more. Backing tech, thinking global and continuing reducing the tax burden for entrepreneurs are just three ways in which that can become a reality.

George Freeman is Chair of the 2020 Conservative Innovation Economy Commission, and a UK trade Envoy. This is an edited extract from 'The Modernisers' Manifesto’, published by Bright Blue

George Freeman is the MP for Mid-Norfolk and the chair of the Prime Minister's Policy Board. 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ann Summers can’t claim to empower women when it is teaming up with Pornhub

This is not about mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

I can’t understand why erotic retailers like Ann Summers have persisted into the twenty-first century. The store claims to be “sexy, daring, provocative and naughty”, and somewhat predictably positions itself as empowering for women. As a feminist of the unfashionable type, I can’t help but be suspicious of any form of sexual liberation that can be bought or sold.

And yet, I’d never really thought of Ann Summers as being particularly threatening to the rights of women, more just a faintly depressing reflection of heteronormativity. This changed when I saw they’d teamed-up with Pornhub. The website is reputedly the largest purveyor of online pornography in the world. Pornhub guidelines state that content flagged as  “illegal, unlawful, harassing, harmful, offensive” will be removed. Nonetheless, the site still contains simulated incest and rape with some of the more easily published film titles including “Exploited Teen Asia” (236 million views) and “How to sexually harass your secretary properly” (10.5 million views.)  With campaigns such as #metoo and #timesup are sweeping social media, it seems bizarre that a high street brand would not consider Pornhub merchandise as toxic.

Society is still bound by taboos: our hyper-sexual society glossy magazines like Teen Vogue offer girls tips on receiving anal sex, while advice on pleasuring women is notably rare. As an unabashed wanker, I find it baffling that in the year that largely female audiences queued to watch Fifty Shades Darker, a survey revealed that 20 per cent of U.S. women have never masturbated. It is an odd truth that in our apparently open society, any criticism of pornography or sexual practices is shut down as illiberal. 

Guardian-reading men who wring their hands about Fair Trade coffee will passionately defend the right to view women being abused on film. Conservative men who make claims about morals and marriage are aroused by images that in any other setting would be considered abuse. Pornography is not only misogynistic, but the tropes and language are often also racist. In what other context would racist slurs and scenarios be acceptable?

I have no doubt that some reading this will be burning to point out that feminist pornography exists. In name of course it does, but then again, Theresa May calls herself a feminist when it suits. Whether you believe feminist pornography is either possible or desirable, it is worth remembering that what is marketed as such comprises a tiny portion of the market. This won’t make me popular, but it is worth remembering feminism is not about celebrating every choice a woman makes – it is about analysing the social context in which choices are made. Furthermore, that some women also watch porn is evidence of how patriarchy shapes our desire, not that pornography is woman-friendly.  

Ann Summers parts the net curtains of nation’s suburban bedrooms and offers a glimpse into our peccadillos and preferences. That a mainstream high street retailer blithely offers guidance on hair-pulling, whipping and clamps, as well as a full range of Pornhub branded products is disturbing. This is not about women’s empowerment or mutual sexual fulfilment, it is about eroticising women’s pain. 

We are living in a world saturated with images of women and girls suffering; to pretend that there is no connection between pornography and the four-in-ten teenage girls who say they have been coerced into sex acts is naive in the extreme. For too long the state claimed that violence in the home was a domestic matter. Women and girls are now facing an epidemic of sexual violence behind bedroom doors and it is not a private matter. We need to ask ourselves which matters more: the sexual rights of men or the human rights of women?