This may all prove unduly downbeat, but it is nevertheless at this stage quite hard to see why things should turn out much better. Growth heals all things – at least all things economic – but it is in particularly short supply.

First the pandemic and then war in Ukraine have obviously made matters infinitely worse. But slow growth and poor productivity have for the UK been an ongoing problem for a long time now, and show few signs of getting better.

It would take an entire textbook to explore the many underlying causes of Britain’s poor productivity record, but an unduly short-termist approach to management would be right up there at the top of the list. Ministers often accuse business leaders of not being able to see past the next quarterly earnings update and skimping on long term investment accordingly.

There is plenty of truth in their strictures but first they should look to the mote in their own eye. Policy in Britain is heavily influenced by the electoral cycle. The famous Juncker curse has it that the politicians know what has to be done; they just don’t know how to get re-elected afterwards. So instead they engage in populist short term fixes, and sweep long term problems under the carpet.

Sunak must, of course, more fully address the cost of living crisis in his next Budget by providing the poorest with more support, but otherwise he should stick to his guns. If Britain is to have any kind of a future, it is vital that excessive public debt is tackled head on. Given that the Chancellor’s next-door neighbour is a spender, not a saver, this can only be done through a higher tax burden.

It is equally vital that UK business is incentivised to improve on its lamentably poor levels of investment in physical and human capital. If there is scope for tax cuts, this is where they should be focused. Raising the headline rate of corporation tax from 19 to 25pc is not wise and, as the IMF points out, in itself is likely to prove a constraint on growth.

But it needn’t be if offset by wide-ranging tax breaks for much needed investment spending. The so-called “super deductions” regime, which is due to end shortly, must be replaced with something more permanent and equally generous.

The Treasury balks at the cost. As a temporary incentive, super deductions merely bring investment forward from the future, and therefore have no long-term effect on the public finances. But if made permanent, they would amount to an ongoing tax cut equivalent to 3p off income tax. There would be few favourable headlines in such a move, but the long-term benefits could be off the scale.

Sunak has found himself accused of being tone-deaf and politically naive. Yet if it takes political naivety to do the right thing, let’s have more of it.