Whether suburbia or bohemia, we all need the same things to live well My post-party epiphany: the strongest determinant of your views on "the economic facts of life" arises not from whether you work for the public or private sector, but from the size of the outfit that employs you. A huge multinational private corporation is more like a state-run behemoth - like the NHS, say - than a company that is owned and run by three people. And a small, local charity - though it may depend largely on the state for its funding - is more similar to an SME (small/medium-sized enterprise, in the ghastly jargon) than it is to MegaCorp, or Oxfam. Of course, the private sector is more efficient (it can make people redundant more easily) and can change its direction more quickly than, say, the police, or any other large state outfit. Which explains why the latter's employees are so far removed from reality that they can't perceive how lucky their taxpayer-funded final salary pensions make them. But any large outfit has a margin that can absorb, for longer, the shock of a depressed economy or changes in taxation or unworkable "equality" or "health "n" safety" legislation; for longer, that is, than a small business. Which partly explains why Barnet High Street is starting to look derelict, as shop after shop goes under. I had asked my new friend at the party: if you could be chancellor for a day, and didn't have to concern yourself with competing lobby-group demands or a fractious Coalition, what would you change? You won't be surprised: cut fuel duty, cut VAT and make the hiring and firing of employees more straightforward (by reducing NI and unwinding Labour's employment laws - Adrian Beecroft has at least one fan). He's right, of course, and in one sentence summed up the Coalition's political/economic problem. Such a strategy would have to be paid for, and I'm not sure anyone has the stomach to continue to fight the trade union dinosaurs. But a growth strategy like this would obviously help places such as Barnet, replete with its small businesses and their owners. The point is that it's not just a strategy for suburbia. Everywhere with workers would benefit. Despite Hackney's reputation as an unemployment black spot, there are more artists per square foot there than in any other London borough. And what is an artist, if not a small businessman? Ditto the owners of coffee-bean co-operatives. All the changes my small-business friend wanted would affect every enterprise, everywhere - including those important local charities. No one is pretending it is politically easy to implement a growth strategy. But I'd wish the Tories would spend less time attacking the Prime Minister, and more time explaining why their ability to cut taxes and regulation is hampered by the Lib Dems, whose treatment of Mr Beecroft this week was shameful. We all know well enough why employment - that is, economic growth - matters to an individual (the mortgage), and to a national economy (debt, interest rates). We forget sometimes why it matters on a more town-sized level, to communities larger than a family, but smaller than a nation. But whether your borough looks like Barnet or Hackney, the fact is that a town falls apart when too high a proportion of its citizens doesn't work, and most work comes from small, local business. Suburbia and bohemia: we need businesses to grow in both.