Hello and welcome to the forecast.
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has just given her big growth
speech and yes, she's backed 1/3 runway at Heathrow, expansion of
transport links in the north of England and also an Oxford
Cambridge arc which involves transport, housing, reservoirs
and lots of infrastructure. But when will that growth
arrive? Will it be enough?
And will it solve Labour's political problems on the
economy, which are quite deep seven months into their term of
government? Joining me today are the
economist and former adviser to George Osborne when he was
chancellor, Rupert Harrison and from King's College, Cambridge,
and the Financial Times, Gillian Tett.
Let's put aside the politics for a second from the economics and
get your instinctive reactions to the announcements in the
speech, Gillian. Well, listen, this is good news
that she's now embarking on a policy shift, or a tweak, as
they like to say. I only wish she'd done that
three months ago. Frankly, I thought the messaging
up until now has been pretty bad for international business.
What we're seeing right now in America is animal spirits
unleashed in a truly extraordinary way, which makes
Europe in general and the UK in particular look pretty dismal by
comparison given the loss of business confidence.
So the fact that they have belatedly realised they need to
do more to unleash and noble spirits is great.
I still think they can go further, but I do welcome the
fact they are shifting now. Rupert.
Yeah, I totally agree. And actually, you know, you say
separate the politics. There isn't a lot of sort of
traditional left right politics in what she's announced today.
There's a lot of local politics and, you know, facing down
interest groups and taking on, you know, locally and nationally
objectors to things like expanding Heathrow on
environmental grounds or building new housing locally.
So there's kind of politics there, but it's not, you know,
this could easily have been a speech of a of a Conservative
chancellor and in many ways should have been.
There's a lot of stuff in here that the last government should
have done. And so if she can deliver on
this stuff, then that is definitely a positive for the
longer term. But Julian's absolutely right
that, you know, it's quite extraordinary to me that this is
coming seven months in when we had an, the whole election
campaign was growth is everything.
We're going to come in with a big growth plan.
And then there was really nothing.
There was sort of nothing there. And it's taken them this long to
kind of cobble this together. In the meantime, a lot of damage
has been done to animal spirits, as Julian says, because tax
rises doom and gloom. And there hasn't been a kind of,
you know, a narrative that the UK was open for business and,
you know, doing the kind of things that that you need to see
to get people excited about investing.
But how does it stack up as a growth plan, Gillian?
I mean, given growth is a problem now and all of these
things are quite long term. I think that the budget that was
announced was quite damaging for the growth messaging because for
two reasons. Firstly, that instead of simply
having simple income tax cuts that they had foolishly ruled
out putting essentially this burden on business through the
National Insurance contributions and also introducing these
number of measures that is scaring away growth capital.
And if you like financial entrepreneurs and financial
investors from London right now, and I know a number of them who
are leaving as we speak, was very, very damaging overall.
She hasn't talked about reversing that sadly yet.
I wish she would, but she hasn't talked about that.
And I do think that's definitely something dragging down the
animal spirits amongst financiers and entrepreneurs and
investors talking about things like the Oxford, Cambridge Link,
Heathrow expansion, house building, getting better water
infrastructure, that's all fabulous, but it's also a long
term project. It's not going to happen
quickly. And so one of the problems is
knowing how quickly this will come through.
So good they are at least trying to kick start animal spirits,
but they need to do more. Rupert, what, what could they do
right now to, you know, to release the animal spirits as
Gillian talks about them? I mean, is there much, you know,
there? Are there many options?
Well, there aren't very many options that don't involve a
sort of political reversal of things that they've done or are
doing. So, you know, you could reverse
the employee National Insurance rise.
That's pretty unlikely. As Gillian says, You know, if
you were going to have raised taxes, and I think that they,
you know, there were, there were probably preferable
alternatives. But if you wanted to raise
taxes, it would definitely be better to do something like
income tax or VAT from an economic point of view because
there'd be much less distortion, much less reduction of incentive
to higher. So the employer next rise was
kind of almost the worst possible tax you could choose.
There are other things they are doing that again would be a
question reversing. So I think they've pushed some
of the things around the non Dom regime too far that is pushing
people out of the country. The labour market reforms that
are promised, they are large parts of those are going to be
very negative for business sentiment and for recruitment, I
think. And again, that's a difficult
thing to reverse on. So, you know, there's there's
not very much they can do short term that isn't a question of
sort of reversing stuff they'd already done.
They she could in the budget. Yeah, or not, sorry, the spring
statement is not going to be a budget.
But if she does have to to tweak her spending plans anyway she
should, she could come back with something that was more growth
friendly around corporation tax, around incentives for
entrepreneurs, around capital gains tax.
You know, maybe she can find money to do that.
But, you know, the truth is that in the short term, you know, as
as all chancellors, certainly over the next 12 months, she is
really at the mercy of the global economic cycle at
whether, you know, if there is a kind of boom in the US, can that
lift Europe and the UK out of the doldrums?
What is the Bank of England going to do?
Are we going to get some relief on inflation and can that lead
to interest rate cuts? Those things are probably all
all of which are outside of her control.
They're probably more important for what is going to happen over
the next 12 months. And if she were going to do
anything immediate to help business in in the spring by
giving them some money back, effectively she'd have to find,
you know, she'd have to cut something when she she'd have to
cut spending. Yeah, she'd have to reduce her
spending envelope that she has set for the spending review
either over the three years that they're going to set out
departmental budgets or the years after that, because her
fiscal targets bind in, in the 5th year.
The, The, the problem with, if she only does it at the end of
the, of the period, the problem then is one of credibility
because it's basically saying we're going to massively
increase public spending in years 1-2 and three.
And then we're going to be very, very tight with public spending
in years 4:00 and 5:00. And, you know, governments have
done that before and, and you know, everyone will question,
well, you you say that, but is that really likely to happen?
I mean, Julian, in terms of optimism, I mean when you talk
about the change in mood in America, I suppose what Labour
is trying to do here is set a new mood and saying we're we're
doing all the things that needed to be done.
This is going to set Britain on a new trajectory and to try and
lift optimism and spirits. I mean, does that work or or is
business more short term? The core problem is right now is
that in America you have a group of people who've either been in
business or been start up entrepreneurs essentially
running the government and setting the tone so they know
what they need to do and say to actually appeal to business.
And they basically scream from the rooftops that America's open
for business, They'll do whatever it takes to help
business flourish and grow. And that is a number one
priority. The problem with the UK right
now is that not only do we not have a group of business people
running the government, but so much the messaging in the first
few months was not the kind of thing that businesses and
investors and entrepreneurs want to hear.
Sitting here in Cambridge where there's incredible intellectual
capital around AI, quantum life sciences, green tech, all the
sectors that are going to grow the economy in the future, we
think and hope. Sitting here surrounded by all
these wannabe entrepreneurs, you know, at the Entrepreneurship
Lab Kings and elsewhere across the city, who are just desperate
to get out and start building things.
What they need to see is both a really strong message of support
and championing what they're trying to do and recognizing
that wealth creation, building companies, actually creating
innovative platforms is a good thing.
We need to be screaming from our rooftops about what we have in
Britain, both Oxford and Cambridge and all the other
amazing universities, and talking about it really loudly.
And we need to be putting in measures that actually encourage
people to want to build businesses here and to stay
here. Because at the moment, one of
the biggest problems is that we have this brilliant brainpower
in Oxford, Cambridge and elsewhere that create start-ups,
but then they go to America and breaking that cycle is going to
be absolutely critical going forward.
So, so I mean the, the Oxford Cambridge arc, which she's
announcing today, I mean that that doesn't do it for you.
No, I think it's a fantastic first step.
Thank heavens they're talking about actually putting in money
and getting that rail link ASAP, because that's an obvious no
brainer that needs to happen very quickly.
Thank heavens they recognize this appallingly embarrassing
impediment for Cambridge, which is in a country where it rains
the whole darn time. We don't have enough water to
actually in the reservoirs to actually build more housing.
This is a fundamental infrastructure problem.
And if only we looked at places like the Middle East right now.
And so it's all, say, Saudi Arabia's doing with all of its
desalinization techniques and how quickly they're getting the
deserts to bloom by getting water to the places that needs
it. You know, if we looked at that,
we should be asking why can't we just quickly get the reservoir
situation sorted out in Cambridge to enable the city to
boom? There are so many infrastructure
projects which could and should happen really quickly with
determination which are critical.
And if those could actually be implemented quickly using
central government power if necessary to breakthrough a lot
of the regulatory obstacles, that would send a really
powerful signal that the government actually means it
when they want to create the conditions for enabling business
to flourish. And sitting in Cambridge using
our brilliant intellectual riches that we have, these are
world beating riches. We've got some of the best
talent in the the world sitting in our universities.
We need to find a way to get that moving as fast as we can.
I. Mean you you sound like you you
you do agree with that criticism of government that it that it
doesn't in some way really understand business that the
levers it's using are about, you know, infrastructure transports
and you know, is that what you're saying that they're
they're not really getting it It's.
Both I saw some of the business leaders in Davos last week and
they were doing a dramatically better job now of trying to sell
Britain to the global business and investing community.
And so IA 1000% salute what they're trying to do in terms of
getting things moving. And I just wish they would hurry
up, deal with more force. And I hate to say this, but, you
know, I think Britain really has to learn to hustle.
And there's so many bad things about America right now that we
don't want to borrow. But I think one thing Britain
has to do is be a little bit less British about hustling on
the global stage if it wants to get the business to really
believe it's open for business right now.
I. Mean Is that possible?
Is the Treasury capable of hustling?
It is possible I. Think the British government has
in the past done that. I mean, I, I would say this
because I was a part of the government.
But if you go back to the the the government between 2010, two
1015, that that government came in with a very similar sort of
political message, which was of course kind of blaming its
predecessor for the state of the public finances and a kind of
focus on reducing the deficit. But there was also a clear plan
to say Britain's open for business.
We had a corporate tax road map which was pre committing to
reduce corporation tax over a series of years.
There were reductions in the cost of employing people and the
hustle. There was like trade missions,
big focus on kind of overseas deals.
There was something called the Great Britain campaign where we
actually put a huge amount of resource and people and
celebrity into kind of advertising that Britain was
open for business. And you might think that this is
a bit superficial, but it actually all adds up.
And I think that businesses don't.
Businesses understand that these things have long lead times and
that investment takes a while to pay off because that's what they
see in their own businesses. You've got businesses in the UK
where their investment cycle is 10/15/20 years.
So they understand that the problem is you've got to see the
pipeline. It's got to be credible.
So doing these things takes a long time, but if you've got a
clear plan on infrastructure, if you're doing good things around
regulation, if you're investing in skills, if you're saying
we're open for business, if you're setting a tax regime that
attracts globally mobile entrepreneurs says if you're, if
you're sorting out your capital market so that a successful
business can actually list in London instead of having to go
to to the NASDAQ, You know, that that kind of package, even
though a lot of the, you know, actual impacts on growth might
take five, 10-15 years. That can create a sense in the
business community that OK, the UK is getting it's act together,
it's serious, and then you can start to get the investments
flowing. So, you know, it does, it does.
There's a sort of as well as tackling the tough decisions and
actually delivering on what you say, there is a sort of, you
know, sales element to this. And can I just say that, I mean,
for me, aside from what happened after 2010, the first decade or
the until between 2000 and 2007 or so, there was this whole
mantra of Cool Britannia. And there was a real sense on
the international stage that London was a fantastically cool,
trendy place to be and the rest of the country by default.
And we were attracting a lot of talent into the UK then.
And I think we desperately need to find this Cool Britannia vibe
again. And in some ways, we have this
amazing opportunity right now. As someone who's spent a large
chunk of the last 15 years in America and talks a lot to
American business leaders and investors, Many people are both
excited about the potential for America's growth right now, but
also pretty scared about the political climate with Donald
Trump in the White House. And there's a real concern that
actually America's over hyped and too expensive.
So there are a number of business people and investors
who want to diversify and hedge away from America.
Where better to do it than the UK?
So we're basically in a race against time against countries
like Singapore, Dubai, Switzerland, to some degree,
Europe, continental Europe. And if we can get our act
together right now and put out our stall as Cool Britannia.
Talk about welcoming in life science groups that are worried
about the potential arrival of Bobby Kennedy Junior at the
health department in the US. If we can pull in, say, the AI
computing people who want to diversify, and green tech, which
of course is getting a big backwards push from the Trump
administration right now. If we can do it, now is the
moment to be absolutely aggressively trying to grab
business away from America because people do want to
diversify. I mean, I suppose that's exactly
what Rachel Rees would say, isn't it?
I mean, isn't that what Rachel Rees would say she's doing by
both deregulation making planning easier, and taking away
the the objections? But she's, you know, she's doing
it after seven months of the reverse, right?
I mean, that's the the problem is that there's been this
incredible negative messaging and then suddenly they're kind
of scrabbling to realise they've they've overdone it.
And there is an opportunity to present the UK as kind of
dynamic, competitive, but also stable and predictable, which I
have historically been British, British, you know, strengths.
We certainly, you know, we undermine some of those
strengths a little bit over the last decade with, you know, sort
of things like Brexit, which was seen as kind of very sudden and
unbusiness friendly decisions. But we still have, you know,
relative to the USA, very functional political system.
We have a legal system that's extremely reliable and you know,
we should be able to retain those benefits.
And I'd also say, by the way, there are things they could do
again to signal like getting the youth mobility visa with the
European Union in place as quickly as possible.
Again, sitting in Cambridge, you know, we have these brilliant
students who want to be able to travel.
We want to also attract the best talent from the continent as
well. And there's a lot that, you
know, wouldn't cost the UKA lot in terms of either economics or
politics, but would go a long way to signal that we're moving.
Let's talk about Heathrow for a second.
I mean for a lot of people this is sort of, it's counter
intuitive. There's a lot of Labour people
in the cabinet who were traditionally opposed to 1/3
runway at Heathrow. Ed Miliband once said it sent
the wrong signal. But now that's all kind of been
swept away by the the push for growth.
And there's this argument that if you can do it all within
Britain's carbon budgets, then there's no there's no problem
with development and there's no problem with aviation.
I mean, first of all, how much of an economic boost is 1/3
runway to to Heathrow? Or is it really about signalling
and messaging? Well, it's a good signal
message. It actually is an important
economic boost because Britain's role is very much as a kind of
entrepreneur, entrepreneur, trading hub.
I mean, you know, in many ways I used to joke that London was
like Constantinople when it was called Britannia because
everyone came here to trade and to do business here.
And that was really powerful. We have a very important
judgment crossroads position in the global economy.
So I think it is important. I do understand the green
concerns. You know, there are a lot of
people who involved in sustainability who will be
disappointed. I would just say, though, that
again, in the UK, we have some of the world's leading research
outfits looking at green aviation and how to get aviation
more sustainable. So I would suggest that if
Rachel Reeves wants to go ahead with this, she should be
simultaneously throwing money at green tech researchers across
the UK that we should feel very proud of to show that we
recognize we need to travel, but we need to also fight to do it
sustainably in the future. I mean, Ripley, are you
surprised at how quiet the opposition is at the moment?
Well, look, they are not going to be quiet.
Look, there's this is going to be a huge row.
It's going to be a huge row within the cabinet.
It's going to be a huge row with the environmental groups.
I mean, on the substance, look, this is this clearly is pro
growth. It's definitely pro growth
directly because you get more activity.
It's also pro growth because the key thing about 1/3 runway and
more flights is that you get more direct flights from the UK
to fast growing parts of the world.
And that means that the UK becomes a much more obvious
place to locate your headquarters or your logistics
hub. And so therefore those direct
flights from the UK are kind of definitely growth positive.
You know, if you're sitting in the treasury about what can move
the dial over the next 1020 thirty years, this definitely
sits in the kind of obvious wins category.
And on the environmental, you know, side, a lot of these
routes, if they don't happen from Heathrow, will happen from
Skipol or Charles de Gaulle or other, you know, airport, other
airports in the EMEA time zone. And so, you know, from a global
emissions point of view, having these in the, having these
routes flying from the UK rather than from someone else from
somewhere else is, is, is neutral, right?
So in terms of the overall climate impact on the world,
this is just the UK beating someone else to it by having a
better airport. The problem is that we have this
kind of unilateralist approach to climate change in the UK,
where we've set these UK carbon budgets.
And the the problem is this is going to increase the carbon
budget for aviation and therefore the government is
going to have to show how it can reduce its carbon budget
elsewhere. And so this is going to put
pressure on delivery for things like home heating, switch to
electric home heating, electric vehicles and transport and
reducing emissions elsewhere. But the true impact of the
Heathrow decision on global warming and climate change
overall will be pretty neutral. It's just that we might as well
have these flights happening from the UK then happening from
another country and giving them the economic boost.
Having everyone who comes through Heathrow being asked to
make a small contribution to green tech research in the UK as
well. Green aviation research.
Let's get moving with sustainable fuels, with electric
batteries, with hydrant power flames and what the Whittle Lab
is doing, which is basically trying to streamline the
friction points around aviation to again cut the emissions
using, by the way, the same techniques they've used to help
the British Cycling team win medals in the Olympics.
I mean, I, I said let's separate the politics.
I think we can bring it in now on this one really.
I mean, because if Labour can deliver this and keep going on
it in a way that the Conservatives couldn't for all
that time, do you think they will get the credit, Rupert?
Yes, I think they will in in two ways.
You know, in the end, it will come down to the reality.
And a lot of this, as I said, is beyond Rachel Reid's control.
So a lot of it will come down to at the next election, can they
point to income growth, inflation under control, jobs
being created and and some of that is in their control, but
some of it is out of their control.
But I also think if you can, there is a sort of credibility
in voters minds that comes with being a government that clearly
can get things done. And that was something that I
think seriously impacted the the sort of tail end of the last
Conservative government where voters increasingly got a sense
that this was a government that just couldn't achieve anything.
You know, it's set out all these ambitions and it all it was
doing was kind of cancelling HS2.
You know, for example, the, the government actually initiated
the Oxford to Cambridge arc. East West Rail was something
that was launched by David Cameron in 2012.
It actually went through. So the constituency that I ran
as a candidate in Bistrom would stop in the last election.
East West Rail goes right through Bista.
There are going to be Oxford to Milton Keynes services happening
this year. So you know, this, this stuff
takes a long time, but it's happening.
The problem was the last government then abandoned the
Oxford Cambridge arc under pressure from local councillors
and MPs because local communities didn't want all the
housing and they were worried about the popularity.
And so it was a government that kept sort of abandoning stuff,
not able to actually deliver change, even if that change is
controversial. And I think if this government
can get to the next election and say, look, we've actually done
stuff that's been on on on sort of the back burner for decades.
We're delivering on Heathrow. We've got, you know, we've
linked up Oxford and Cambridge. We've got growth going in the
north of England because we're investing in, you know, Trans
Pennine, you know, links. All of this stuff might sound a
bit abstract, but I think voters will reward the sense of a
government that is functional getting stuff done.
The challenge is it's just really hard to do that.
It's not just the politics. There's, there's going to be
judicial review, legal challenge process.
You know, there's a lot of giving the speech today is, is
all very well. That's, that's like day one.
There's there's, there's hundreds of days to come of
actually delivering this stuff and showing voters they've got a
functional government that can actually get things done.
I mean, do do you think culturally Britain is ready to
make that shift though, because the planning objections have
traditionally been massive and massive political problems.
You know, do you think this idea that you can sweep away the
objections to. Well, it's about.
Political leadership, I think that the, I think that the
country is ready for the message and you've got a government that
on the face of it has this enormous majority.
So if ever there was a government that would be able to
force this kind of stuff through, it's this government,
right? They do not have to worry about
losing votes in the House of Commons.
And that is a huge benefit. But it's about having the
political leadership and the courage and, and you know, the
conversation in the prime minister's study has got to be,
we have got to deliver Heathrow and not listening to the voices
saying, well, we're worried about losing seats and votes to
the Green Party. You know, you've got to stick to
the goal and then make, you know, have confidence that you
can win the political argument at the next election instead of
just sort of chopping and changing and, and, and all these
sorts of allowing the short term objections to to, to put you off
course. I mean, Julian, there's a,
there's a poll out today that puts reform ahead of Labour.
So, you know, so, so late Labour's got sort of the Green
Party snapping at one end and reform at the other.
I mean, what do you think of this sort of the idea that Keir
Starmer can lead a sort of a cultural shift towards growth
and to unleash animal spirits? I mean, animal spirits and Keir
Starmer are not things that would normally go in the same
sentence, are they? No.
He's trained as a prosecutor, so he's very good at mastering
briefs on a micro level very quickly and understanding
logical sequences to get through a brief and argue it.
But the ideological searing vision stuff isn't something
that natural actually comes to him.
I would argue what you see by the fact that you've got support
for Greens and Reform at the same time is people are hungry,
desperately hungry for a click up vision that they can rally
around and a message about the future.
Green and Reform are each offering a strong vision message
brand that people can understand quickly.
You might hate it and they're radically different, but the
thing that's very clear is just technocratic government alone
doesn't do it right now. You've got to offer people a
really clear cut vision and sign of hope that they can rally
around for the future and a sense of direction for better or
worse. And most people in Britain would
probably say worse, Donald Trump is doing that in America very,
very clearly. Unfortunately, much of
continental Europe doesn't have that right now.
But if they can come out and carve, really hoist their flag
to a vision for the future, for growth, then I hope that will
start to turn the economy around, turn around, unleash
some animal spirits and also provide a serious, you know,
counterpoint to both reform and the other voices that are coming
onto the stage right now. I.
Mean Rupert mentioned, you know, that the idea that actually
Rachel Reid isn't really in control of this and that if, if,
if America has a big economic boost, then we, we, we might get
a boost a lot, you know, on, on the coattails, I mean, against
that is obviously still the sort of the uncertainty around
tariffs and what kind of impact that might have on our economy.
I mean, how do you think all of that is going to balance out?
Could I just say thus far, you know, and I talk quite a bit to
the Trumpians or the Trumpies, what you call them, thus far,
the UK hasn't been focus number one at all.
It's been primarily Canada and Mexico and China.
I suspect the UK will come into focus at some point.
They are more focused right now amongst the Trump group on
France and Germany than they are in the UK.
They will be looking to see where Keir Starmer grows again,
if he does unleash some kind of growth, pro growth agenda, You
know, you know, that's likely to make it easy to negotiate over
tariffs and threats. Of course, the main issue within
the UK and the US is service sector.
But it's going to be interesting to see, you know, how that
develops because, you know, we've already had a lot of
messaging from the Trump team that if it looks as if they are
going in the eyes of the Trumpians, very left wing, then
the risk of tariffs is likely to rise, which I'm not interesting.
You know, it's a horrific situation to have this kind of
almost, you know, imperial approach towards dealing with
other countries. And we are going back to a world
of power politics and very much hegemonic power politics when it
comes to trade. But that is the reality.
And so it's something which is going to impact the UK going
forward. I wouldn't get overly worried
about the impact of tariffs on the UK economy because you know,
goods and manufacturing exports to the US is not a major part of
the USUK economy. We're a more service based
economy and so we're not the most vulnerable, whereas if
you're sitting in Germany, you'd be a lot more worried about what
might be coming down the track. But also the UK, I think is
going to the art of the deal means that the UK needs to be
negotiating for a position of strength and to have other
things to offer. And the UK, for example, to the
Trump team can offer its leadership in security and
defense and particularly defense spending, but also defense
technology. And I think the other area that
is going to come under pressure is EU KS relationship with
China. And so I do think that it's
quite interesting that this government has started this kind
of reset with China that is going to go down really badly in
the White House. And I don't know how maybe
they're doing this because they're super smart and they're
basically setting this up so that they can junk it as an
offer to the to the US administration.
I'm not sure that they are as smart as that, but that might be
what ends up happening. Although Trump's slightly
playing it both ways on China at the moment as well, no.
He is, I mean, he clearly is angling for a deal on China
rather than kind of full on confrontation, at least as far
as we know. I mean, he we know with
President Trump that he can do a full 180 when you're least
expecting it. So any statement has to be
hedged, I think. So I mean, overall I'm I'm
getting from both of you that you know, what she has announced
today is, is good, but it doesn't really get her out of
her immediate problem. I would say Glass half full is a
fantastic step in the right direction.
Hooray, should have happened earlier, but it's a step in the
right direction. Glass half empty, she has a lot
of challenges in actually implementing this and actually
convincing business leaders who she has already scared off to
some degree. But thank heavens we've seen
this. Yeah, look, she is.
I agree. Look, it's good.
And the messaging from the Labour Party on growth over the
last couple of weeks has been so much better than it was.
But why wait seven months? It's absolutely extraordinary.
I don't understand it. But also she's going to keep
getting a lot of negative messaging from business about
the the National Insurance rise, about the labour market
regulations, about incredibly high industrial energy costs,
which is a massive problem for for UK manufacturing,
particularly heavy industry. So there's a lot of other
problems that aren't dealt with today, but it is definitely a
step in the right direction. I think we give her AB Plus
sitting in Cambridge University. What name minus?
I think that's great inflation. No comment.
Gillian Tester, Rupert Harrison, thank you both very much indeed.
That was the forecast. We'll be back next week.
Until then, bye bye.