With the bazooka being well-wielded by Sunak, it seems almost churlish to suggest some further things the Treasury could do. But here are three.
My answer would be “maybe, provided the spending or tax cuts significantly improved our growth potential.”
We need to control long-term immigration but also make it easier for entrepreneurs to visit the UK so that they can invest in and work with British companies.
We in the regions must accept that it will be up to us to provide the detailed data that will help to monitor the success of investment made.
This imbalance is driven by the core science budget: the Research Councils (which fund projects) and Quality Related “QR” funding, which universities allocate.
Can have a bold enough economic policy that people in these newly gained seats can see the difference in five years’ time?
That’s a legitimate political agenda, and people are quite welcome to vote for it. But they deserve to know what’s coming.
I hope that we will see more of the Chancellor during the campaign explaining how his plans can help support investment to boost productivity.
Without one, spending on older citizens will so far outstrip revenue from workers that future governments will face some unpleasant choices.
Ever since the EU referendum, there’s been renewed focus on how to help poorer places. Helpfully there is decades of evidence about what does and doesn’t work.
Bowman and Westlake’s policy ideas are perfectly compatible with this end, but pitching them as a city and town agenda risks creating a false impression.
Despite polarisation on Brexit, there is more agreement among voters than often appears – and therefore more cause for optimism.
The seats that might back a No Deal offer for cultural reasons might well balk at it for economic ones.
While we mark the tragedies in our past, let us also focus on celebrating our current partnership and enduring friendship with India.
It would bring with it many compensations, including regulatory freedom, tariff income and £39 billion of cold, hard cash.