Which way will Boris turn the UK Economy in the post-Coronavirus World?

There is no doubt that the Coronavirus pandemic has put huge strain on public finances. Policies ranging from the Government’s furlough scheme to the construction of the Nightingale Hospitals have incurred huge financial costs to the Government.

Public debt has sky-rocketed, and the Government Debt Management Office  are working flat out to provide Government with the funds it requires.

The economic impact is likely to push the deficit as high as £260bn (BBC) but the question remains; which way will Boris turn? Will he pursue a policy of austerity; will he try to manage Government debt or will he have to resort to higher taxation to balance the books?

Throughout the General Election Mr. Johnson proclaimed his disdain for the term ‘Austerity’. He was attempting to distance himself from the policy pursued by the Tories in 2010. Regardless of its practicality, its popularity was of paramount concern for the Prime Minister. It is particularly unpopular in the cannonball constituencies that brought down the Red Wall in December, the areas where the constriction of public services was most felt.

For Johnson to pursue such a policy would be politically very damaging. There is also no indication that the Government wishes to pursue such a route.

Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, has already pledged £2bn to be spent on British Transport to create ‘smoother and safer journeys’. This type of spending would simply be scrapped if austerity was being pursued by the Government.

Another option Mr Johnson holds is that of managing the national debt and ‘riding out the storm’.

If the Government wishes to avoid the policy of the oh-so dreaded Austerity and pursue its objectives, it will have to slowly deal and work with the accumulated debt. In 2019 the Tory manifesto pledged huge spending; 20,000 police officers, net zero carbon emissions by 2050, £14bn for schools, the list goes on…

The Government may wish to achieve these objectives and perhaps simultaneously avoid cutting spending that  may have a contractionary effect on the economy, which is imminently facing recession.

A possible solution may be to seek the promotion of economic growth in the long term, then pay off the deficit slowly without compromising on the objectives set out in the General Election. However, the Government must tread very carefully here. 

Maintaining, or even increasing such a high level of debt could have dire consequences for the country. We only  have to look at Greece to understand  the damaging effect that high levels of public debt  can have on the health of a country.

Some, particularly on the Left, suggest we should increase taxation to provide funds to bring down the debt levels. This could do more damage on the public finances than good.

A comparison that illustrates  this difference perfectly comes from the Labour Callaghan Government in 1976 when the tax rate for the top 1% of earners reached 83% on income. The richest 1% provided  11% of total Government income from tax revenue.

By comparison, in 2019 the top 1% of earners paid a tax rate of 45%. This led to the richest 1% providing 27% of income tax receipts .

Higher taxation has a contractionary effect on the economy as it leads to less revenue for the Government to address the financial issues. It can also  be hugely damaging, especially for the most disadvantaged in our society.

Higher taxation, or a tax on the rich is not the solution to balance the books.

The Left’s referral to the nostalgic, ‘Tax the rich’ slogan shows how they are blind to the complexities of economic policy.

Reopening Businesses Need Their Support Industries Reopened Too

The business events, delegate accommodation and meetings sector is worth £31.2 billion to the UK economy and employs over 700,000 people.

In the latest series of the Government’s opening-up announcements, the sector has been completely overlooked, with the term “conference centres” used to categorise a range of different businesses as being the same for the purposes of keeping them all closed beyond the 4th of July.

Could anyone really define what a conference is when asked?

It’s a broad term that gives little value to a UK-wide industry offering support services to business that range from accommodating training sessions for 10 people to 5000-delegate international conventions.

So many parts of the hospitality industry like pubs, restaurants and hotels have been given the green light to open. Yet meeting and training venues cannot be used to deliver a key service to the many businesses that need all the help they can get.

Right now there is demand to accommodate statutory legal training, exams, development courses, key team meetings, board meetings, strategy days, recruitment days and interviews. That’s before considering the requirement that businesses of all sizes have for buying in extra space day-to-day.

People at work want to interact face-to-face. Businesses have functioned for months with the various forms of online platforms for meeting that we have all had to adapt to. There will be a continued place for the “who’s zooming who” approach as many businesses rationalise and change post-Lockdown. But we know for sure there’s nothing quite as productive as a live, in the flesh performance being involved!

The impact of the Lockdown will lead to a greater need for meeting venues, when teams that have moved from the office space to working permanently from home need the face to face to interaction. For the trying times ahead, allowing us to play our part right now really could create a win-win in the longer term.

How is it any different to sit in a socially distanced meeting room for an exam, training or team meeting than to go to a restaurant or a wedding reception for 30 people?

People are more likely to get close at a large social gathering when spirits are high than at a meeting. Ask yourself, when did you last feel the need to hug or touch a colleague or fellow delegate when you meet up to discuss business?

There are obvious double standards that are adding to the sense of injustice too. For instance how can hotels be open and actively marketing meeting spaces on the basis of providing accommodation which puts them an immediate advantage over the dedicated sectors whilst the specialists are themselves ordered to stay closed?

None of us want to see any business disadvantaged further. We are pleased that hotels and restaurants will reopen. But when they are clearly seen to be aligned to what we do, it seems arbitrarily unfair and nonsensical that the wider range of support businesses cannot reopen too.

More often than not meeting venues are very large and able to offer safe and robust re-opening plans that can adhere above and beyond to social distancing guidelines. As it is industry standard to register delegates and visitors individually, we are well equipped to support the NHS Test and Trace service without the controversy that may arise when punters are asked to register for a visit to the local pub!

Like the many other businesses overlooked and forgotten, the Events & Meetings industry is right at the brink and now being pushed to limits. For us it feels like it will be impossible to survive.

An optimistic estimate is it will take at least 12-18 months to recover if we could reopen now. Whilst “conference centres” remain closed, we can only wonder at the message the Government is really giving to the many sectors and industries that desperately need support services like ours.

British business need us open and available to help give them confidence that they really can return to business as usual.

We are ready and willing to do whatever it would take to open on 4th July. Instead are being left behind.

Read The Backbencher Opinion on this HERE

Emma Jennings is Co-Founder and Director of The Studio Venue Company and a guest writer with The Backbencher

May’s Brexit Deal: The Pragmatic Approach

It’s becoming clear that May is playing a game with the future of the nation, our economy and business, and that is to hold the vote on her Brexit deal as late as possible. Downing Street confirmed a few days ago it would be after Christmas, likely in the New Year. What May is clearly hoping is that, by holding the vote as late as possible, she can essentially frighten MPs into backing it, many of whom are more opposed to no-deal than her agreement. Some MPs have accused May of self-interest, others of bungling. But what choice does she have? This is the only deal the EU will accept; that is clear enough. But MPs wont accept it. They are playing politics. They are the ones risking all our livelihoods. The game May is playing is not of her own making. Rather, it is the product of years of fantasy, lies and now a refusal to face reality. 

What will happen then, when May does put the deal to the Commons? It’s anyone’s guess. To my mind there are 3 main outcomes:

  • The deal, by a mixture of scaremongering, practical thinking and some pragmatism is begrudgingly accepted by the Commons
  • The deal is rejected by the opposition and unsatisfied Tory Backbenchers, May resigns and the country slips through a mixture of apathy and incapability into no-deal
  • The deal is rejected, parliament manages to organise itself and utilise Dominic Grieve’s amendment to in some way extend Article 50, and at this point a confidence vote in the Commons would probably be a reality

May, no doubt is hoping for the first of these to occur, and to be honest, for all my distain for the constitutional disgrace that is the current government, so am I. At this stage pragmatism should be paramount. Yes, May is a malignant spectre no one seems able to exorcize, but it is clear now more than ever that she is right on one count: her deal is the only deal. The EU will not give anymore, so accepting her agreement is the logical option. It is for this reason I would not advocate for my third outcome, because the problems would be identical no matter how long we extended Article 50 for. A General Election might change the arithmetic, but there is no guarantee.

But for god’s sake we must avoid no-deal at all costs. Business cannot afford it; people cannot afford in and nor can the nation. The total dismissal of the reports produced by The Treasury, Bank of England, IMF and countless other independent economic experts which forecast potentially devastating ‘short-term’ impacts of a no-deal, both “chaotic and severe” is frightening. The dismissal of such predictions, by people devoted to these subjects, by experts in the field, by Mark Carney whose duty it is to defend the economy is beyond naïve; its utter recklessness. All have predicted major economic strife should Britain leave the EU with no-deal, the loss of jobs, further wage squeezes and less funding for public services. And yet so many accuse them of scaremongering, of launching ‘project hysteria’. The leading Brexiteers are always first to rubbish the views of the experts: John Wittingdale called one report which forecast dangers for the economy “unduly negative… rushed, skewed and partisan”. These people are not interested in facts unless they support their position. A good analogy would be going to the doctor and being told your drinking habit was bad for your health, and then dismissing your doctor as “partisan” or “negative”, demanding a second opinion, and when that come back the same, dismissing all the opinions as “negative”; running a “fear campaign”… promptly drinking yourself to oblivion.

The reality of the situation is simple. The British economy, as the experts rightly point out is not prepared or strong enough to sustain a no-deal Brexit without significant damage. We lack the infrastructure, for instance, to make or supply the parts required by manufacturers in the auto or aerospace industries without imports, free of tariffs and checks, from the EU. Now, in the ‘long term’ this might become less of an issue, but how long before companies find it no longer economically viable to operate from the UK? Small business who rely on EU trade wont even have that long. Most work in the short term. So while one might argue the larger companies might ‘hang-on’ until a deal can be arranged, small businesses wont. Even those who don’t rely on EU trade will feel the pinch. Any recession will squeeze incomes and raise prices, and as people become more conscious of the money they don’t have, so the small and medium sized companies, whether they rely on the EU or not will suffer falling profits, with job losses the inevitable result. The argument of many on the hard-Brexit side, that a hit, however severe, to the economy would be a ‘short-term’ event and that Britain would pull through ‘in a couple of years’ may be true, but unfortunately, most businesses wont have that long in the event of no deal, and I suspect larger companies wont stomach higher costs and a weaker economy for as long as the Brexiteers hope.

The Brexiteers would ‘get our country back’, but what sort of country would they have? And at what cost? That is why I say, whatever your views on May and her infamous behaviour, realise that the ‘game’ she is playing is one she has been forced to take part in. The current impasse is the product of deep-seated ideological stances and intransigence by MPs. Back her deal. Principles are all well and good, but now is not the time for fine words. In 100 years time, our grandchildren will not remember the impassioned speeches against or for this agreement, only the result, because that is all that matters. Let us do the pragmatic thing, so that they may not look back at us with distain and regret; so that we may gift to them something more than hollow words, broken promises and a national disaster. Let us not leap into the dark.

‘A Leap in the Dark’ (Punch, 1867)



Britain Getting Back on Track? It’s the Economy, Stupid.

Ah yes, it’s the economy stupid.

While I am not a massive fan of the former US President – Bill Clinton – it’s for a good reason. His ‘three strikes’ policy and his sordid relationship with Monica Lewinsky did little to endear him to me. But there are lessons we can salvage from his two terms.

To his credit, he was right about one thing when he grasped at the national mood around the economy.

This was highlighted in the campaign when he effectively took down Bush (’41) on how he himself was not affected by the economic decline in the early 90s, but he was.

The Clinton Administration, while divisive, led to the creation of a budget surplus of $128bn, 18.6m new jobs but increased income taxes.

Boris Johnson could take a lesson from Bill’s book. In the 60-page booklet, published by 10 Downing Street, the Government demonstrates a firm understanding of the kind of tactile approach necessary to emerge from the crisis.

The Clinton Administration, while divisive, led to the creation of a budget surplus of $128bn, 18.6m new jobs but increased income taxes.

“COVID-19 is a new and invisible threat. It has spread to almost every country in the world… The Government’s aim has been to save lives. This continues to be the overriding priority at the heart of this plan. The Government must also seek to minimise the other harms it knows the current restrictive measures are causing – to people’s wellbeing, livelihoods, and wider health.”

Transparency and the safeguarding of lives and livelihoods aside, the impact of COVID-19 on all accounts is demonstrable.

For example, the Government has since reported that 1.8 million households made a claim for Universal Credit between 16th of March and 28th of April. This is shockingly high and to make things worse GDP will fall by 35 % later in the year, according to OBS.

In April alone, unemployment rose from 850,000 to 2.1 million. A staggering rise not seen since records began. Photo by Emiko K from Pexels

The situation is bad for everybody as more and more jobs will be lost as businesses fail, look for example at British Airways who announced layoffs of 12,000 people last week, despite the Government’s furlough scheme.

I’m unsure which industry will seek to purge costs through staff wages in an attempt to stay alive next, but I know there is more to come.

These measures are hitting working people hard. Simon Dolan, the man, taking the Government to court over human rights violations due to this lockdown, shared a message from a supporter called Robin Hunter.

Robin states that his 20-year career in hospitality was eradicated, with little chance of getting back on his feet due to his age. To make matters worse, he was laid off before the furlough scheme was introduced, and now lives on a sofa in his mums flat, while receiving £74 a week from the government.

This could happen to anyone, as thousands of small business have not been trading over the last three months and possibly even longer. What’s worse is this could happen to you next.

Boris needs to do something quick; he needs to reopen the economy and get Britain back to work. This isn’t a matter of money over lives: I grasp that people are dying, but poverty kills too.

In the previously mentioned report, the government openly admits that the country needs to get back to work and produce. The report made clear that the longer the sustained lockdown and the reduction in economic activity, the harder to maintain public finances, including services like the NHS.


It’s simple: the longer we’re in lockdown, the harder it’ll be for the economy to recover. This will lead to a significant reduction to our current living standards as compared to the past as we will have to accept a crumbling public purse and even smaller private one.

This will lead to thousands more avoidable deaths through things like suicide and poverty. When it does not kill, it mentally scares and scars the lands around it, in the words of Lord Sumption. Therefore, we must end the lockdown as soon as possible to save the economy, save the people and save the future.

While the Clinton presidency is a divisive one, a pedal-to-the-metal approach is one that the British Government needs to have at the forefront if it is to emerge from the present crisis.

A CEO Pay Cap Would Cap The Welfare Of All

The share of national income going to top CEOs is going up and up. Government intervention to restrict this commits twin errors of assuming that rising pay at the top is an unwarranted endemic and assuming that intervention seeking to constrain pay at the top will necessarily improve the labour market opportunities of those at the bottom. Neither of these assumptions holds true. Governments trying to restrain CEO pay will hamper economic growth whilst simultaneously doing much damage to the living standards of those at the bottom of the earnings distribution.

A recent Institute of Economic Affairs publication by Ryan Bourne and Professor Len Shackleton reviewed a series of damaging changes proposed by those across the political spectrum. This included Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to “institutionalise fairness” by setting a maximum pay ratio between CEOs and the lowest paid worker and a proposal from the High Pay Centre that publicly listed firms in the United Kingdom should be forced to publish data on the ratio of CEO pay to median earnings. It concluded that concern over inequality at the top end of the pay distribution would be better dealt with by “a fundamental simplification of income tax to eliminate exemptions, loopholes and tax shelters” which would also work to affect other high–earning individuals such as private equity investors, business owners and celebrities.

Before exploring the potential harm that the proposed regulations could inflict, it is first interesting to challenge the idea that rising CEO pay necessitates regulation at all. Many politicians argue that extreme income inequality at the top is a symptom of some terrible corrosion of societal morals, holding back growth and damaging the life chances of those at the bottom. These claims are simply unfounded. The OECD found no evidence that “those with high incomes pulling away from the rest of the population harms growth”.

Conversely, rising CEO pay is actually associated with increasing firm value. When former Prudential Chief Executive Tidjane Thiam announced his move to Credit Suisse, the total value of their shares rose by £2 billion. The high pay earned by Thiam was clearly deemed worth it by shareholders. Increasing pay at the top is a reflection of an increase in the (perceived) value added. It has not caused those at the bottom to get any poorer. Why should the government intervene?

Attempts to regulate or cap CEO pay could seriously damage economic growth. Switzerland dodged a bullet by voting overwhelmingly against a reform that would see CEO pay capped to twelve times that of the lowest paid worker in the firm. Jeremy Corbyn’s proposal that the UK should adopt similar regulation is a plan to shoot oneself in the foot. There are three obvious ways that businesses can reduce the pay ratio between their cheapest worker and CEO: slashing CEO pay, grossly augmenting the pay of the lowest–paid, and cutting low–paid workers altogether. None benefit the economy.

FTSE–100 CEOs are currently paid almost two hundred times the pay of the average worker. To bring this ratio down via a reduction in CEO pay down to any so–called “sensible” level would require extreme cuts. Since few countries have regulations requiring the publication or capping of such a ratio, in an increasingly globalised market CEOs would simply jump ship.

Top CEOs bring much value to their organisations – such a loss of talent could seriously harm companies. Many businesses would be forced to either relocate to regain access to top executives or shut down altogether. Both responses damage economic growth and result in unemployment, particularly amongst immobile lower–paid employees.

Since a slashing of CEO pay appears unviable, firms might instead reduce their ratio by increasing the pay of the employees at the bottom of the pay scale. Since labour expenses often account for a large portion of business costs, this would be hugely damaging to a business’s profits. Furthermore, for competitive companies with large numbers of employees, the extent of wage augmentation needed would simply be unfeasible. Increasing the wages of those at the bottom of the wage ladder would lead to increases right up it to ensure some extent of differential pay based on value. This would be extremely expensive.

To add to this, a cap on the ratio would severely restrict the size of these value–based differentials, crushing incentives for workers to add to their human capital or encouraging higher–value workers to move abroad where regulations would less stringent, enabling them to earn fairer wages. Regardless, in the long–run, workers cannot be paid significantly above the value they add to a business. If firms are forced to pay some workers more than their value it is likely that other workers will pay the price: unemployment.

It would clearly be difficult for businesses to artificially manipulate their ratios by cutting CEO pay or increasing the wages of the lowest–paid workers. This means that many companies would likely be forced to take the uncomfortable step of making workers redundant. There is already a huge shift towards the mechanisation of work; the laws and requirements proposed above would unnecessarily and inefficiently speed up this process. Low–paid jobs would be outsourced or removed altogether. This would increase unemployment, with the bulk of displaced workers being the less–educated. Such a policy would not help the low–paid or the well–paid. It would help noone.

Bourne and Shackleton conclude that a war against high CEO pay would both be unsuccessful and highly detrimental, causing “collateral damage” across the economy. Basic populist rhetoric on the topic skates over many of the important issues and so should not form the foundations for effective policy design. They state that the government should not extend requirements on firms to publish data on executive pay. If, despite the overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise, high pay is felt to be a problem, “it should be dealt with through simplifying the tax system and eliminating loopholes” not through rules and regulation which leave everybody worse off.

Degrees are shrinking in value but all anyone talks about is cost

Students protesting against fee rises in line with inflation should actually be more concerned about the shrinking value of their degrees. Increasing numbers of students are exiting university and entering jobs they could just as easily have obtained without a degree. This renders many complaints about fee growth irrelevant since graduates’ earnings often mean that they are unlikely to ever pay off sums anywhere near their accumulated debts.

The government is developing a system in which well-performing universities are able to increase their fees in line with inflation. Despite students’ claims that such changes are unfathomable, it is clear that they were both inevitable and necessary for students to be able to enjoy the same quality of education from year to year. Students currently pay £9000 per year for the privilege of a university education. If inflation were on target each year at 2%, it would take around twenty years for this amount to fall in value by a third.

Expecting universities to maintain a good level of education with plummeting income from students seems far more unfathomable than tying university fees to inflation. Given that inflation in the cost of providing a university education currently sits well above the headline rate of inflation, tying fees to this latter figure will still encourage increased efficiency of provision whilst enabling universities a chance at maintaining quality levels.

Whilst the anger of students who are facing fee hikes and believed themselves to have signed contracts stipulating fees of £9000 per year is understandable, the outrage of those yet to start university is not. Nobody is forced to go to university. Those who go choose to do so because they believe that the value to them of attending university exceeds the costs. Though the university fees increasing in line with inflation should not have any bearing on the intrinsic value of a university degree, those who believe that it does, to the extent that the benefits of university fail to outweigh the costs, can simply choose not to go.

What should be of far more concern to current and prospective students is the falling value of having a degree. Work by Bryan Caplan suggests that much of the financial benefit accruing to graduates is the result of the signalling effects of their degrees rather than the skills they learnt during their degree per se. Whilst many find their time at university to be the best years of their lives, it seems a shame that the skills acquired during the process constitute so little of the financial value of having a degree. University certainly shouldn’t be all work and no play, but when students report that the work is barely harder than A–Levels, there is clearly an issue.

Indeed, many institutions have seen a trend shifting away from teaching students the valuable skill of how to think for themselves towards encouraging students to develop their ability to rote learn answers to questions. Something is amiss when students are complaining about exams containing questions on topics they’ve covered but of types they have not encountered before. In many jobs in the real world workers come across challenges, the likes of which they have never experienced before. Being able to problem–solve in such a situation is far more useful than being able to recite past answers to past paper questions.

One major complaint of those protesting against nominal fee rises is that they discourage those from poorer backgrounds from applying for university educations. This is both factually dubious and reliant on significant misunderstandings of how university debt works. In 2015, the BBC reported that more disadvantaged students were entering university than had entered when fees were lower. University education is actually becoming more accessible despite fee increases. This apparent reversal of logic can be easily explained by both increased access efforts of university admissions teams and the fee system itself, amongst other factors. Pretty much everyone embarking on a degree will leave university with a large lump of debt.

The amount of debt each student accrues (excluding maintenance costs) is not dependent on their parents’ income but upon their university of choice and length of degree. The amount of debt each student pays off is dependent on their future incomes alone. Poorer students should be no more sensitive to fee changes than their richer counterparts. The fear of high levels of debt may be greater for those from a poorer background, but the nature of the fee system makes this fear somewhat irrational – the debt is only repaid by those earning above a particular level, making it very different from “normal” debt. Fears about nominal fee hikes reducing social mobility are unfounded and should therefore not be used as an argument against them.

University fees are not Freddos rocketing to ridiculous levels; they are rising in line with inflation in the same way that all other goods and services in the world are. If universities are to be able to provide education of a consistent quality then they must continue to receive fees of a constant real value, and that means increasing them in line with inflation. Students protesting against the increasing of fees as such are fighting a losing battle – in vain.

Tackle Tax and let the UK Prosper

Tackle Tax and let the UK Prosper

In the 2019 General Election, Jeremy Corbyn’s taxation policy was radical. He wanted to raise an extra £82.9bn by increasing Income Tax for those earning above £80,000 to 45% and 50% for those with incomes above £125,000. Corporation Tax was set to rise from 19% to 26%, and the introduction of a second homes tax was planned at some 200% of the Council Tax bill. The list goes on.

Keir Starmer is likely to be more reserved, especially as his popularity is on the up. In his leadership campaign the new Labour Leader was deliberately ambiguous about his ideological position and took care to distance himself from the radical Left, whilst simultaneously doing the same from the Blair years and the right of the Party.

Starmer has shown that he is ostensibly a left of centre Liberal, and we can speculate that his fiscal policy will certainly be less radical than that of his predecessor.

The general view on taxation amongst centrist Liberals is that a percentile or two extra on tax rates will provide more funds for our public service, whilst having little effect on commerce and the economy. But does this idea really hold true?

The Government and a vast majority within the Tory right would disagree.

Indeed, the alternative view would be that If you want to provide longevity to the prosperity of an economy a tax increase is not the solution, no matter how miniscule the percentage rise might be.

Taxation, no matter how small, will have a contractionary effect on the economy. The level of that contraction will not always be directly proportional to the percentage of the change. But the fact remains that the economy will still be constricted either way.

Tax Increases may provide short term revenue to the Government. But in the long term it will only decrease the amount of tax procured to the State.

Across the Pond in the United States, The National Bureau of Economic Research state how “an exogenous tax increase of 1pc of GDP lowers real GDP roughly 2 to 3 percent.” This is a fitting illustration of the effect of Taxation on an economy. More tax leads to a lower GDP, leading to less tax receipts, less Government revenue and therefore it leads to less money being available to spend on vital services for our communities.

An increase in tax today will lead to a loss of future tax receipts and Government revenue. We have been here before and the figures speak for themselves:

In 2010, Alastair Darling raised the top rate of tax to 50% of income after it was predicted that such a move would raise £3bn. In the short run it only raised £1bn towards address the debt accumulated due to the 2008 Bank Bailouts. In George Osbourne’s 2012 budget the top rate of Tax was lowered to 45% and a later HMRC report indicated the cut raised an additional £8bn.

The figures speak for themselves. Tax increases will provide short-term revenue, but that revenue will ultimately fall as the economy continues to be constricted.

With indications that the Chancellor is considering Tax rises as a step to offset the Lockdown debt, the Government may not be giving adequate consideration to the real financial issues the Country faces. An increase in tax today will not help our prosperity in the long run.

Government must avoid seeking yet another quick fix. They must take the difficult decisions that will be beneficial in the long run.

It should be a no-brainer. Let’s reduce Tax and let Great Britain prosper.