Mini-budget wasn't hastily planned it was always the PM and Chancellor’s aim - Andy Brown

That is not entirely fair. They have been planning many of their actions since at least 2012 and there is much more pain to come.

The ideas that they began to put in practice in their first un-costed budget were expressed very clearly in a book that they jointly authored called “Britannia Unchained”. It was published ten years ago.

In it the reader can discover some interesting things about our country. Mainly that we are very lazy people and need a lot more cuts to government services and a lot more tax giveaways to the wealthy in order to make us more like emerging economies.

When they wrote it they were very clear that they thought “Britain has suffered from a diminished work ethic and a culture of excuses”.

They said that there was too much public spending and that we couldn’t continue with the perks which a generous welfare state lavished on previous generations. We had to start making some sacrifices to get growth.

These were also the themes that Liz Truss outlined during her campaign to become leader of the Conservative Party and thus the Prime Minister.

We can therefore be very confident that she is determined to cut back on public services as soon as she can and that she thinks removing regulations on business is the way to achieve growth.

The impact on necessary public services will be huge when they are asked to cope with 10 per cent inflation without remotely adequate increases in funding.

There are already people with toothache who can’t get an NHS dentist and can’t afford to go private. There are already technical colleges training people for future jobs on out of date equipment with demoralised staff who haven’t had a real terms pay increase for over 10 years.

We are being told that this is necessary pain because a dash for growth will generate the revenues that will enable the NHS to be properly funded. Just as many of the government Ministers told us there would be £300m more each week for the NHS if we voted to leave the EU.

The government is firmly wedded to the idea that growth is always good and that the reason we haven’t got growth in the UK is because there are too many regulations getting in the way of business.

Both assumptions are questionable. Growth is very bad if it is growth in the discharge of sewage into our rivers, growth in the unnecessary use of plastic, or growth in air pollution. It is only welcome if it is long term sustainable growth that builds a more secure future and provides high quality jobs.

What matters is what kind of growth the government invests in and the character of the choices that the government makes about what to foster and what to avoid. When the personal computer came along, governments that decided to invest in the training of software engineers helped their country move forward. When the steam engine passed into history no amount of government investment could have enabled it to survive and prosper.

That is one of the huge reasons why investing in a dash for fossil fuel production and for light touch regulation is so short sighted. Technology is moving with great speed and unpredictability but one of the few things we can be certain of is that fossilised technology must pass away and be replaced by techniques that don’t ruin the planet.

We are moving to a knowledge economy where high quality jobs in science can drive some sustainable growth. Developing a computer game or working in the music industry can generate a lot more income than a fracking well.

In such circumstances is the clue to growth really to abolish regulations and let the lowest common denominator industries move onto so-called “investment” zones?

Across our county hard pressed councils are being asked to sign up to allow light touch planning and lower environmental standards. Without proper local public consultation. Those zones are unlikely to drive helpful growth if they can only attract companies that want to work below normal standards.

The way to get good quality growth is to start investing in those technical colleges that have been starved of funds, to set local councils and local investment partnerships free to make their own decisions about what to invest in, and to invest in sustainable technology that has a future.

Investing wisely is always a good idea. Betting the house on fracking, low regulations and low quality jobs is not. Especially if you are paying a mortgage on the house that the government is betting with.

Andy Brown is a Craven District Councillor representing Aire Valley with Lothersdale and the North Yorkshire Councillor for Aire Valley.