UK Industrial Strategy: Analysis, Gaps, and the Path to Growth | Bryden Wood Podcast

Welcome to the Bryden Wood Podcast. In this episode, 'UK Industrial Strategy: Analysis, Gaps, and the Path to Growth', co-founder Martin Wood, Technical Director Adrian La Porta, and John Dyson examine the UK's recently published industrial strategy.

The discussion highlights the positive aspects of the strategy, such as establishing a 10-year framework for economic stability , identifying key high-growth sectors (advanced manufacturing, clean energy, creative industries, defence, digital/technologies, financial services, life sciences, and professional/business services) , and its systems-thinking approach to complex challenges. 

They note the importance of a focus on pharmaceuticals, an area where the UK has historically excelled in innovation. The strategy's attention to reducing electricity prices for energy-intensive businesses and boosting R&D is also acknowledged as positive.

However, the conversation pivots to what the strategy lacks: a clear 'industrialization strategy' that details how economic growth will be achieved. The team points out the disconnect between university education and industry needs, particularly in areas like automation. They also discuss the UK's 'cultural gap' and 'structural problem' regarding investment confidence at critical stages for new ideas , and the tendency to silo efforts rather than fostering integration between regional clusters.

The podcast explores broader issues like the UK's productivity puzzle , the low uptake of AI and robotics in SMEs , and the need for a compelling national vision beyond mere policy documents. They argue for a stronger connection between educational institutions and industry, akin to the US model where universities actively foster startups.

Ultimately, the episode emphasises that while the industrial strategy is a good start, its success hinges on fostering deeper integration between commerce, education, and investment , and creating a cohesive, skilled workforce across all levels.

• Intro: 0:00
• John Dyson on UK Industrial Strategy: 0:27
• Adrian La Porta on Industrialization: 3:52
• Martin Wood on Stability and Environment: 5:21
• Integration and Investment Gaps: 7:23
• Clusters and Regional Issues: 10:55
• Education, Skills, and Industrialization: 15:16
• Cultural and Economic Reflections: 21:29
• Vision, Integration, and Conclusion: 25:34

To learn more about Bryden Wood's Design to Value philosophy, visit www.brydenwood.com. You can also follow Bryden Wood on LinkedIn.

Transcript

Intro: 0:01

Welcome to the Bryden Wood Podcast. Bryden Wood is a global strategy and design consultancy. We are inventive thinkers, designers, engineers, and technical experts. We integrate creativity and deep experience to resolve complex challenges and realize a better world. Find us at Bryden Wood dot com.

John Dyson: 0:27

Yeah, so we're talking today about, uh, the UK industrial strategy. I think, I think it was, uh, published in June, early June. Um, and, um, yeah, we're gonna have a, a chat, chat about it today. Uh, my, the first thing that sort of occurred to me was, was, and actually it was backed up by, uh, a, an article I read in the Financial Times that actually it's a really good thing to set out a 10 year. Industrial strategy because, because once you do that, people can calm down a little bit and they, they might like it or they might not, but at least they have something to start to tie their plans on. And it, and it, it, uh, it, it's generally good economically just to have some sort of coherent strategy, whether you agree with the details of it or not. So I think, I think that was, uh, that's really, really positive and I try to be positive about it'cause it's very easy to go into. Go into, uh, criticism about, about anything that you read. And I think there's some fundamental things in there that feels like they get right. So they picked out some industries, which clearly the UK does pretty well in some areas of, uh, innovation that we do quite well in. And it's focused around those which is, which I think is good. Um. And, um, and particularly for me, a focus around pharmaceuticals, which, which is where I come from. And, and it's always been, I think, an area that the uk, particularly in the innovation side. Has done well on. I think more for me though, is the, some underlying real strengths in the way that it thinks about the problem as being a, a system problem. So it talks a lot about networks and links and supply chains and clusters rather than, you know, thinking about individual objects and or individual, uh, levers to pull, which I think is really, is actually. Quite, quite sophisticated thinking under, underneath the whole thing, whether, whether people see the same thing or not. It's another, another point. Um, but, but if I am going to go onto the sort of slight criticism or, or what I, what I left it with after reading it through a couple of times was, although it's an industrial strategy. It's not really an industrialization strategy. So it says, yeah, we want to focus on these areas and we want to do much better in them. We want to grow the economy around them, but doesn't really go well about how does that happen because you are, it's the same people. Just that you are going to potentially do the same things, just focused in a particular direction, and how is that going to change everything? So I think for me, and one of the things like for instance, sticks out and it came outta a, an Accelerate Laboratories event that we ran was that, for instance, in education, um, people. People were saying, well, the problem is is that scientists, scientists come outta university and they're excellent scientists, but now the lab is full of automation and they don't understand the automation. Or we get automation people coming outta university and they don't understand any of the science. And in order to really grab hold of AI and that thing, we need people who consider cross both. But it doesn't say anything about doing those sorts of things, which is a, would be a change. Mm-hmm. So, so that's, that's really my sort of underlying discomfort was whereas. Where's the change? Where's the industrialization strategy? Uh, yeah, you, you've read it. Uh,

Adrian La Porta: 3:52

well, I, I think that's, it's really, uh, it, it's a good, it's a good point, John. And industrialization is something that we're very interested in and, and bringing new technologies into operation at scale, I suppose is what we mean. Um, and you're right that that process is something which, um, we need some. Capacity and capability building in to, to deliver all the things which are in the strategy. And again, I'd agree that it is, um, you know, I was gonna say holistic, but holistic's the wrong word. It is a, um, uh, a good, um, systems approach to industrial strategy. It talks about, um, everything from electricity pricing to skills, to exports, to, to tax policy. Um, and, um, uh, I, I think another thing that, that jumped out. To me as being particularly relevant at Bryden Wood was, um, they have a set of foundational industries and one of the foundational industries that they talk about, um, is construction. And there's a lot of discussion not only in the document, but if you look at say, what the CBI has said about it or the TUC, um. About building infrastructure, but we know that there's a big block of, you know, capacity and capability issue in building all this infrastructure. And the infrastructure is an enabler for, for the rest of the strategy. Yeah. Yeah.

Martin Wood: 5:21

I mean, the thing that strikes me about it is that what you said at the beginning, John, is that the good thing coming from that is just any sense of stability.'cause all of these things. All of these things thrive better in, in something more stable. So 10 year plan increases, stability gives you some idea of what the sort of environment the government's trying to create. So that's, that assumes it would survive a general election. That's a bigger assumption. Yeah, it's a bigger assumption. But let's suppose, uh, it does and it's got, you've got a, therefore you've got sort of 10 year look ahead and therefore you've got, you know, these changes in the, uh, potentially in the power pricing and so on, which are all quite interesting in changing a different environment. Um, the problem then is, you know, you just because you changed the environmental conditions, which is quite frankly. Most of all government can do. So, you know, can't blame them for that. Mm-hmm. But they, they change the, um, uh, environmental conditions. It doesn't immediately means these green chutes are gonna grow differently or, and quicker. It doesn't that unfortunately, unfortunately, if only worse. So you, you change immediately, change the environmental conditions. Suddenly the green chutes start appearing and it all starts, uh, going very well. There's, there's a, there's a fundamental, or at least we think there's a fundamental. Um, it's probably cultural, uh, gap in the uk um, sort of structural problem in the uk. That means that you can change this environment, but unfortunately some, something to do with the soils, if you like, um, mean that, uh, it doesn't suddenly burst into life. Mm-hmm. And. A lot of it, you know, I was talking to you about, you know, the, the UKs have sort of famously good at being, uh, intellectual entrepreneurs, if you like, people who are following a new technology and developing it. And of course we've got universities that support that well in the uk and I, you know, you can always be better, but let's face it, that's not the thing that's making the UK lag in productivity and so on. It's not our capacity for intellectual innovation. And in intellectualization of issues. It's just, that's not the issue. Some think about. And, and generally speaking, going back to a point you made earlier, John, about, uh, lack of integration, uh, is, uh, is that's the, to us, that's always, there's always the key missing link that, um, uh, causes the industrialization to be slower. Um, and that and a peculiar. Or, or a different, uh, investment, uh, environment in the uk? Certainly to the us. I mean, we all know the investment, um, uh, the investment environment in the US is just radically different to the uk. I mean, there are people literally desperate to put money on the line for new ideas in the us. Uh, to a point me, sometimes it's. Would, would quite frankly be seen as foolhardy in the UK perspective. But in the UK it's quite the opposite. And there's just, there's like, you know, it's not you. There's no funding that takes something from an intellectual point to a point where people feel that, uh, it's investible. There's not no point, but there's a gap there. There's a weakness there. Yeah. Uh, absolute weakness in, and that therefore doesn't propagate the. Level of integration you're looking for. So you're talking about, and and we've got, we've got in educationally and a number of things, we're rather polarizing. In the UK we tend to tend to put things into silos backwards. Yeah, we do. Yeah. And then we don't cross fertilize them adequately. So you've got this problem of black and cross fertilization, polarization, so on, and then a lack of investment confidence at a cer at a critical stage. Just when a a, an idea is going to leap across the divide. We make the divide a bit bigger. We make it a scarier fall to the bottom and everyone goes, oh. Not doing that. So these kind of things are, it's, this is really the point. It's, it, it's, unfortunately, it's gotta be more than just expecting a government to pull the, you know, twist the dials and expect everything to get better Somehow we've got to use that to create, uh, a, a, a different network. Uh, a different network, a combination of commercial entities and educational entities and so on. Something's gotta happen there. There's a piece of the knitting that Yeah. As yet undone. There's a co I mean, there is, um, in, in the industrial strategy to do talk about an investment sort of, uh, framework, um, bringing in the British Business Bank and various things, um, which is good. And they also talk about the, um, really focusing on, um. Locations as clusters for different industries. And I think there's lots of, uh, academic research that says that those sort of clusters work well. Yeah. So that makes sense. They, they do and does it, I I couldn't read where it was then thinking about linking those clusters. Yeah, and I, I felt that was a bit missing in that joining the Dr. Good doc all the time. That, that we tend to focus, we tend to, so cluster's great, but then we tend to make that an entity and silo that cluster. Yeah. Think, fight against, I was thinking against each other. So we love things we can see as a singularity. Pharmaceutical, you know, you've got, you've got some posters, but if you join those up, you'd have some great manufacturing clusters. Well. And also RD clusters and, and if you looked at the links between those clusters, then I guess, I guess one of the other problems in the UK is that, you know, I I is the whole structure of the uk such a primate city, country, you know, um, it doesn't work necessarily as well as it does in a, in a federal nation where you've got, where you've got equal investment happening in. For example, German cities, you may have a similar investment happening as you're doing in Frankfurt. You're doing the you uk, it just gravitates to London constantly. So you've set these clusters up, you've gotta make sure that the investment, the interest in investment, and also the infrastructure to support that investment. Like the road and rail and connections and Yeah, just getting people to places. Yeah. Yeah. Quite literally. So there's no point having something, which is a wonderful place to develop a new technology. And you find it's a, it's a. But, you know, uh, there's no train station. There's bad service. It's too far. You know, all those kind of things. And we gotta put the clusters in the right place, and we've gotta, we gotta support them with the investments and the infrastructure if possible. Of course, that's. Not an overnight thing. That's perhaps more about how you design the network in the first place, given what the UK is to start with. I'm just suggesting it doesn't have fundamentally the shape that a lot of other, um, a lot of other countries that, that put that it's our product. It's a very bond federal country, England. I guess that's, that's, that's changed over time because I, you could argue that I'll last a lack of. Industrial strategy has meant that, that it's just been a serviced become more and more a service based London SouthWare East focused. Yeah. I mean, I mean, I mean, does, does that talk about industrialization? Well, it, you know, it talks about, it talks about look at, look at the industrialized centers during the Industrial Revolution. You know, we're in London. Well then, and, um, it's, uh, you know, it, it, uh, we need to re uh, discover. Some of our sort of zeal for industrialization that, uh, you know, realize the world. I'm sounding a little like a telegraph either here, but there is a, there is a link, I think to the, that they do mention it in the, um, uh, in the report, uh, to, um, English devolution. So trying to create more mayors and more Yeah. Local democracy. I'm big, big supporter of the, of that in principle. I'm not sure about how it's gonna work in practice, but, um, I, I think it, the problem is it, it potentially does the silo thing. Yeah. So for some reason, I, I dunno how you, but, but as soon as we, we tend to divide things because it makes sense because you want more local thing, but then. Everyone then wants to act on their own. Yeah. And they become, they become fighting one another rather than going, isn't this great? We could form a network, which makes us, you know, locally accountable and more powerful together, and we don't seem to do that. I, I, I guess so as long I, I, I, I think though, I think the first step though is to actually. Increase those levels of regional identity, which I think the mayor, I mean, look, Andy Burnham, I mean, let's face it, he's as a spoke, whatever you, whatever your political persuasion is as a spokesman for Manchester, he's pretty strong. Yeah. And you know, I mean, even these weird, you know, people don't think these things can be affected. It's like. The status quo will prevail. But you know, just the moving of the BBC studios to talk for keys. Yeah. You know that lots of people talking with a different accent on the TV every day. I mean, that's actually quite, actually quite a radical transformation, oddly enough. And guess what, Andy Burnham pops up more than any other. He is in the neighborhood. So suddenly Manchester's got a voice that he didn't have before. So these things, these things really do matter and really do happen. Um, and I think that's unfortunately. I, I think asking them that to happen at the same time of a balanced network of, uh, occurring is perhaps too ambitious. Let's get these regional hubs to be, uh, to have a stronger voice to begin with, uh, higher level of investment. And Birmingham was much stronger, uh, obviously in the last few years. I mean, uh, well indeed and, um, and being from Birmingham more power to that. Yeah. But, um, it's, uh, you know, I, I think that's. Be part of the, part of the solution. But um, I mean, simply we do have. Still a lack of, um, connection between insta, uh, educational institutions, universities, fundamentally. Yeah. And, and industry. I know it's been, this is, this is one of the oldest things in the world, but, but it's just different to the us. I mean, the US expects MIT, Stanford, these kind of universities expects startups to be. Appearing outta their racks. Mm-hmm. It's not, it's not like a, um, it's not like a well, uh, you know, what's our alumni like, isn't it marvelous how they've done? Um, it's an expectation that there will be startups appearing every year. It's like, it's like a, something the university needs to happen on a regular basis. Mm-hmm. And I just don't feel that's the case with still, with some of the, um, uh, UK institutions. I think that, that there's, um, um. Certainly a section in, in the report on, on skills and, um, we have this strange dichotomy of, um. There's a political, um, imperative to create what they call good jobs. Um, and again, the t's got something to say about what they, what they mean by that. Um, but then if you listen to industry, there's a constant, uh, and chronic skill shortage. And these things to me, don't connect very well. So there's something broken with the education system that doesn't, and maybe not, we're talking, we're not just talking about. You know, children's education, but particularly the adult workforce about how do you connect this, this, this sort of, uh, um, lack of work with lack of skills. You know, really you pick up sort of a class system in skills at, at still. There, they, they're sort of two dimensional view of education. You either, you either go to university and get a degree in a part of academia. Mm-hmm. Um, or you are in work and you are trained in some skills and, and there doesn't seem to be anything joining those two. It seems to be, they used to be as the hills, I mean, honestly. Yeah. That, that's roofed somewhere. The report that, again, that language, it's almost three second World War structure we're talking about here. I mean, it, it's, uh, it's a, it still persists. I mean, I remember, uh, you know, I went to a, a, a comprehensive school, but was a secondary mom. Before he was made into a comprehensive school and you know, it was a great place to learn how to do metal work or to cook, uh, or to do needle work, or to do, because, because basically half the school was, was, was given over to trades and Yeah. And you know that there's something of that, uh, culture still covered. Education, lack of integration, as you say. Because, because in order to have a. Industrialize it. You need to integrate the academia and the skills somehow in this big middle ground.'cause that's where industrialization happens in the middle ground. Yeah. It doesn't happen up here or down here. It happens in the middle. No, absolutely. I so, so, so, so basically I, I, the crux of, I think what we're getting at here is, um, industrial strategies. Good start, you know, in, um, good attempts. Good, good level, attempted stability and, uh, clarity. I suppose, but what are we culturally gonna do with it? Yeah. And, and, um, there's something about, um, supporting entrepreneurialism beyond the, uh, beyond the point of, uh, invention at a, uh, within a, within an intellectual, within the intellectual sphere or within, um, universities and education. And, uh, it's, it's a, it's a really tough thing to take a technology from. Um, from inception, well through to, through to, uh, rollout. That's a, that's a, and it's a place that you can't leave that chance given where you don't have to leave its chance in the US because it's already supported. But in the UK somehow that there's gonna have to be some constructive effort put into making that divide less, uh, as a gap and, um, and, and more supported. I think it's probably instructive to look at Germany as well, because it's a very different model, but it is also very successful in terms of its, uh, GDP. Yeah. And I mean, they've got their own concerns and worries about being remaining competitive, but uh, yeah, they're, they're, I think when you look at. We, we, I, I'm reticent to be, you know, lording the entrepreneur. Uh, 'cause it suggests that successful high tech businesses are the results of individuals working on their own, but linking it back to some other things, you need those clusters. You need that support network. Most innovations are brought through multiple companies, um, acting at different points in the life cycle, having the right funding available, having the right academic people available. So it is a, there's, there's several aspects in the industrial policy that. That, that sort of work together. Yeah. Yeah. And that's, that's, that's I think how you build the, the these. Do you think these sort of, I mean it might be simplistic, but I firms, you know, I see the German sort of model very simplistically as you know, they come, come up with an idea, a great engineering idea or something, but they sort of keep it, they're very, have this small company mentality. They keep it in the small company and it remains there and they generate wealth. The company and then, um, whereas we seem to wait for when an idea comes up, wait for an American, big American Conor to come and buy it. Yeah. Well, it's not uncommon. And then, and then we go on and that, yeah. I don't know, but that doesn't seem to, but also the idea, I think seems prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon oil, if we call it that, of. The point of starting a company is to sell it and, and get rich. And that, that doesn't seem to be the culture, uh, in, in, uh, in Germany. In Germany, but that seems here. And that might be some of the gap because if people feel that they're only, yeah, the best option is to the idea US import. I mean, that's definitely the purpose, but, but the, the kind of, at least they're honest about it, I suppose. It's like it's absolutely a given. That you will be building it for sale. It's almost like the first, first, and, and yeah, there are some negatives to that, but then from an investment perspective, there are positives from it. So it's a question of how you sort of blend those. My, my concern is the UK just, we don't, I mean the one big, uh, metric that everyone talks about and for good reason is just lack of productivity. And we just don't have a, I dunno, we don't seem to have the same fixation with productivity that other nations do. And, um, and I I maybe a fixation is not a good thing, but, but suddenly a, a keener interest than Yeah. The UK currently has. We do. But it's such, it doesn't feel like it's a, doesn't feel like it's a, a driver in and of itself in the uk whereas in other places it does, it feels like a fix fixation like the weather. But, so, so yeah, we have rainy weather here, but we can't do a lot about that. It feels like that's what excite we always upon us. Lack of productivity is something we just can't do anything. There's an gay thing, you know? Yeah. Again, in, in, in the, in the, uh, in the report, there's some sobering, uh, fact. The UK's uptake of, um, AI technology and robotics really bad. And, uh, SMEs. So small and medium sized enterprises are really, really bad. So, uh, is my high take? Yeah, just about, just about. The worst it could be. Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly 11th in the LECD or something else. So what's fundamentally changed since the industrial resolution? When we were right at the beginning of, you know, taking on new technology, it's, it's first mover, disadvantaged, you know, look, we invented the Paul two or 300 years ago. What was wrong with the spinning gen? Why weren't that survive today? You know, but, but there was something then that, that we, we wanted to take on new technologies and become more efficient. Arguably though the, it seemed. But were those people, um, you know, the people that drove the industrial revolutionist probably getting a bit, a bit relevant. Timewise, were they actual rebels and disruptors, you know, rather than being mainstream part of British societies? Well, I dunno that answer to, that's a tricky question for the day. Is it because we became really rich and then 'cause 'cause it did. It did. I was thinking, you know, reducing energy prices, you know, for industries like a surely that's a good thing. Yeah.'cause it looks more competitive, but then you go actually sometimes, you know, and an economical imperative really makes you think about your business. Well I it more efficient and productive and, and was it, did we just become. You know, because we became very wealthy because we went through the industrialization and process first, but then we went, now we don't really bother anymore. There's always a cyclicality. I always think all companies and nations are no different. They live on their legacy for a period. So you, you see a successful cru and company brand, a successful brand, it's always the same. Builds itself up over a period of times by being a leader, by being an innovator, by increasing productivity, by doing all these things. And then, and then it goes into a phase where it starts to spend its legacy. It can get away with. Being underperforming, quite frankly. Yeah, yeah. Because it's got this leadership that it, that, and of course it, it's a malaise, really. Mm-hmm. And, um, there's a, yeah, it's exactly what's happened in many of nations. And I think, um, I mean, again, I'm gonna sound like I'm from political persuasion. I don't want to sound like from, but there is a malaise at the moment and there needs to somehow be a, um, it's like, you know, it almost ties into the, this, this post. Pandemic, lack of productivity where everyone's decided to reappraise their life and decide that, you know, work is perhaps, um, not, not, not what they're most interested in and so on and so forth. I, I just think we've gotta come to terms with ourself as a, as a society and decide, um, you know, what? Level of per capita income we want. Yeah. Um, relative to the amount of effort we put in. And, and, and quite frankly, there's a mismatch at the moment. Everybody can see that. And everybody can see the current, um, government, um, with an impossible economic, um. Per balance to, to create. And it's partly because expectations and, uh, on those are, are, are just misaligned at the moment. And I think if we don't get that, uh, sense of having to create or be more industrious, industrialized, be more industrious, use our thinking, convert it, convert it for the benefit of the uk. It's not all about you gave it. Convert it for the benefit of the uk, then, um, then this malaise is going to, uh, continue to affect us in a global perspective. We're gonna continue to fall behind, but I'd say it's a danger of a, sort of a pull your socks up type, uh, ex. I realize that danger, what I'm saying, say, but I still kind of feel it. You know, the other side of that though, I think Adrian was, was, I, I felt that what it lacked was. A vision and actually something visual to say what the UK could be like. Yeah. And, and it was so, it was very, it's very verbose and it's very, and of course it says lots of words, but these words are used all the time, so they really have no meaning anymore. But I felt there it needed something. I picked turn thing to set up there because I, I think it is a pulley soer, but, but you can pull your socks. In a very positive way. Well, what, what I was, you need socks. It's character, isn't it really? Where's the vision? Where, where's the carrot rather than the, where you're just a bunch of wasters. Well, I was just gonna say, coming back to, you know, pulling some threads of our discussion together is if you can get the, um, somehow you've gotta, uh, help people to support that, that economic growth by. Getting the skills, uh, in place and giving people an active role in building those things. Again, get away from the idea of the loan entrepreneur and his, um, and his, his set of, of, uh, of sort of, uh, uh, drones supporting him. It's not that it's a, you know, it's have a high skills economy. You've gotta have, uh, all those levels of craft and the apprenticeships and the degrees and the PhDs. All those people are, have got a role to play. And I think if you look at. Those clusters in other countries, people can keep in the same high tech sort of, or high skills roles, but move companies. Mm-hmm. Silicon Valley for instance, you know, you might change jobs pretty frequently, but you can, you know, it doesn't really matter because there's usually another job in that sector. So somehow creating a body of body of, um, you know, people who can contribute to it in different ways, uh, that that's the root to the. So the pulling up your socks? Uh, well, I, I think so. Yeah. Coming back to that point, I think, you know, the, the, the piece is the, how does it all fit, fit together? How do you make it fit together? How do you, uh, in your language, Martin knit it together and, and it's the knitting that's the really important part of this. Yeah. You know. And, and I think there's, there's, there's something that we need to work on. Um, it's a great thing. Who are we, we need to work on? Yeah. Um, but one thing that concerns me about this, I think it's a, it's a quite a high minded exercise and the paper and, and, and one of the questions is who's it communicating with? How many, how, who's getting what from this document? Yeah. Yeah.'cause as you said, lacks a sort of, um. Uh, vision immediacy. That's, uh, something that grabs you, I guess, uh, inevitable, really, in a document like this. Mm-hmm. Um, so the question is who's, who's actually listening? Who's actually interested. Yeah. And uh, I think, you know, I go back to what you said for me is what we said at the beginning, something about the mechanism between commerce and education and investment. There's, there's a, there's a, there's, they're like those three spotlights you see at the beginning of a movie or when you're, uh, are they coming together on, on the same place? And at the moment, they're misaligned. They're not, they're, they're just not concentrated on the same zone at the moment. And I think if they could be. If there could be some alignment of those, and that doesn't, it can't be all governmental. It can be encouraged by government, but it can certainly be commerce, education institutions, and perhaps most importantly, the world of investment finance. Funding venture capitalism, um, that, that could, um, help, uh, these things propagate more than just, uh, background, environmental, um, uh, industrialization strategy by the government. That's, that's at least what, uh, we believe in. And that will lead people to higher levels of integration, higher levels of integration between education, commerce, and investment. And I think that's where the, uh, the gap. That we've been talking about right through this, that is causing this lack of industrialization of ideas created in the uk and that's how it'll get filmed. And that's, yeah, I'd, I'd just say that, uh, I, I, I think you know that. The lack, if I say that first is, is is that vision. And I think having a, a, you know, you men, you mentioned Martin, a single measure, um, um, which I think would, uh, there's a lot of theory of that'd be very valuable. So if you just said, look, GDP to person is a great measure and we should look at that because by doing that, we'll pay for the NHS. By doing that, we'll pay we'll, we will be able to, we will be able to be sustainable. In a way, but we need to do that in order to pay for these things that we all want. So I think that would be, for me, a compelling message. But with that, the, the vision of, of what it could be like, and then really talking about the integration and really focusing, and I think those sort of three areas of academia, sort of business and, and, and, uh, uh, funding and comma, uh, um, is really, would be really important to. At that sort of vision level because it, it dives into. It dives into a bit too much detail, and then you get lost in lots of words. So I, I think that's what missing. But I think the integration is probably the, I, I don't though, and that those three need to, there's probably a fourth about the, the community, um, the workforce, because otherwise it all sounds a bit top down. And, and I think the political driver for a lot of this is to address, you know, deep dissatisfaction in the regions and, and if it, if it becomes another, another policy that. Studies top down, you know, it may not deliver those, those political objectives that, uh, are at least partially driving the strategy. Yeah. Yeah. It's probably for another time, but that depends on whether the del the, the output is delivering a social benefit or whether, and I guess it's not as well. Yeah. Secondary exactly what it's his brother, you. That delivers the social app. I'm, I'm on the fence on that. Okay, next time. That's another conversation.