We would like to start the answer by an example of USA when they were heavily involved in the industrialization and expansion. People of all different occupations were involved in some part of the industrial revolution. However there was a debate over the government intervening in the building of infrastructure. Chief Justice John Marshall made many landmark court decisions which played a role in defining the business climate that developed during the industrial revolution and strengthened the central government's control over the business.
Thus finally the government was involved in the early stages of the industrial revolution. The government's decision of this era laid the ground work of the future U.S. growth of the nation. Without these pro-business decisions, the United states would not have made the change from being agriculturally dependent to the industrialized nation it is today. [www.historyteacher.net/USProjects/myessay21.htm]
Hence it sounds better in some situation and it doesn't in some.
For example in China, local governments stand passively by as private firms aggressively reject long-standing official right because the government officials in south China are increasingly anxious to shed their responsibility for economic management. Also they fear the risks and dangers associated with the more complete market system that has emerged during the 1990s.
As a result, China's southern provinces have already begun the process of separating government from business, while, in the north, leading officials emphasize the slogan "separate government from enterprises" but, fearing slow growth, practice the opposite. [www.pitt.edu/~tgrawski/paper98/china.html]
To what extent do you think a change of government in a) UK would affect the business community? b) the countries of group