Subscribe to our newsletter to receive business tips, learn about new funding programmes, join upcoming events, take e-learning courses, and more.
Take the first step to successfully starting and growing your business.
Join for free)
Posted: Wed 21st Oct 2026
12 min read
On Wednesday, 28 October, John Healey delivers his first Budget as Chancellor, and the first of Andy Burnham's government.
It comes at a difficult moment. Borrowing is running over forecast, debt is close to 94% of GDP, gilt yields are near their highest since 2007, and the fiscal buffer has roughly halved since March.
The Treasury has been clear that every new measure will be paid for, not borrowed.
For small businesses, the rumour mill has been busier than usual: a rise in the small business rates relief threshold, VAT collected at source on online marketplaces, scrapped fuel duty rises, a crackdown on vape and betting shops, and a reported change to how family businesses are passed on.
One potential revenue raiser has already been taken off the table.
The Chancellor had been under pressure from senior Labour figures to raise Capital Gains Tax on profits from selling shares and second homes, but The Times has reported that John has rejected the calls amid Treasury concerns it could bring in less money, not more.
Lord Jim O'Neill, the former Goldman Sachs economist who has informally advised the Prime Minister, told The Times the move is "eminently sensible", warning that business feels "so beaten up".
That leaves the Chancellor needing to find cash elsewhere, as the war in Iran pushes up borrowing costs and ministers face pressure to help households with their energy bills.
Ahead of the announcement, Enterprise Nation CEO Aaron Asadi sat down with Daniel Woolf, head of policy, and Liz Slee, head of media, to talk through what is likely to happen, what it would mean for small business owners, and what they would really like to hear.
Each rumoured measure was scored out of 10 for how likely it is to happen, and out of 10 for how good it would be for small businesses.
Here are the five key takeaways, followed by the conversation in full.
The manifesto locks on income tax, employee National Insurance and VAT, combined with a fiscal buffer that has shrunk from £24 billion to around £12 billion, leaving the Chancellor very little room.
All three agreed that the most realistic good outcome for small businesses is that nothing goes up.
As Liz put it:
"The safest thing that could happen is nothing increases."
Expect a Budget of small, targeted measures rather than big swings.
Enterprise Nation's latest Small Business Barometer found three in four owners now pay themselves under £20,000 a year.
When Enterprise Nation asked members what they wanted from the Budget, the answer was consistency: a predictable, easy-to-navigate system, not more rules and paperwork.
Liz's version:
"Don't change things for the sake of it. Have a plan and stick to it."
Business is where the pressure lands when personal taxes are off the table, and members want the government to show it understands how small firms actually operate.
The rise in the small business rates relief threshold from £12,000 to around £18,000 is the most likely measure (scored 8 or 9 out of 10 by all three), and Aaron expects it to be the flagship gesture to small business.
But it is a near-term pressure valve, not a growth strategy, and many of Enterprise Nation's members are already below the threshold. What is missing is a growth plan for the country as a whole.
Daniel's point: many of the levers that would unlock growth, starting with planning reform, "wouldn't actually cost the Chancellor a penny."
The reported plan to tax family business handovers as income rather than capital gains got the strongest reaction.
Estimated to raise around £300 million a year, all three felt the political and economic cost far outweighs the return.
Liz gave it 0 out of 10 for impact; Daniel put it on a par with the 2012 pasty tax and expects it to unravel if announced.
Enterprise Nation's position: a founder who builds a business to pass on is doing exactly what the country needs, and taken together with cuts to inheritance tax relief and higher dividend tax, this would tell founders that building a business makes you a target.
Two measures scored well on fairness even if their direct impact is modest.
VAT collected at source by online marketplaces (10 out of 10 for likelihood from Aaron) would stop overseas sellers posing as UK firms to undercut honest traders, something Enterprise Nation called for a year ago, provided sellers under the £90,000 threshold are kept out of it.
And the crackdown on vape and betting shops, while "PR politics" in Aaron's view, answers the frustration of owners who go through the effort of Making Tax Digital while a shop two doors down only takes cash.
Neither fixes the high street's real problem, which is that the economy makes it hard for any business to survive there.
In the weeks before the Budget, Enterprise Nation asked members what they wanted from the Chancellor. The responses paint a picture of businesses under pressure, wrestling with complexity, and looking for practical help rather than grand gestures.
Diana Potora, who runs Potora Meals, a homemade food business in Wigan, Greater Manchester, alongside Potora Academy and Potora Empowered Journey CIC, called for practical support to adopt AI properly:
"There's a huge opportunity for AI to help small business owners create more productive, profitable businesses without simply working more hours.
"But many owners are already stretched and don't know where to begin. I'd love to see support that helps businesses look at their actual people, processes and numbers, identify where AI can genuinely create capacity, and then implement it.
"If we get this right, AI adoption could make small business better for the human beings running them as well as for the economy."
Edward Klinger, Stanmore, north-west London-based founder of ScaleUpGym, a business operating and scaling platform for SME founders, echoed that, but with a warning:
"Fund practical support that helps small businesses build proper operating systems, clear processes, roles and metrics, before pushing them to adopt AI. Technology amplifies whatever is already there.
"If the foundations are messy, AI just makes the mess faster. Get the foundations right, and the productivity gains follow."
For Shahzad Younas, who runs Ledger & Books Chartered Accountants, an ICAEW practice for sole traders, landlords and limited companies based in London, the priority is simpler: make tax simpler.
"The increasing complexity around VAT, Making Tax Digital, reporting requirements and changing tax rules can create a significant administrative burden, particularly for sole traders and smaller businesses," he said.
"I'd also like to see consideration given to the impact of Capital Gains Tax on property businesses. Clearer guidance, greater certainty and a simpler compliance process would make a meaningful difference."
Robyn Payne, who runs a small manufacturing business, wanted a complete rethink of business rates:
"Eligibility is currently driven heavily by the rateable value of the premises rather than the size or financial reality of the business occupying them.
"We need physical premises to operate, for which we already pay a commercial rent. We've recently experienced just how much administration can be created by business rates assessments, bills and then applying relief, which ultimately reduces the liability back to zero. I
"'d like to see a simpler system where very small businesses below an appropriate economic threshold are taken out of business rates altogether, rather than being billed and then required to navigate relief schemes to reverse the charge."
Davinia McGann, a chartered accountant and business coach for women business owners who runs DaM Good Business and DaM Accounting in Peacehaven, East Sussex, had three asks:
Increase the personal allowance for income tax. She said: "Increases in the standard of living are being pushed onto small businesses through minimum wage rather than allowing them to increase in line with everything else."
Reduce the minimum wage for 16- to 18-year-olds. She said: "The majority of 16-year-olds have no experience, require a significant amount of training and time investment to be good employees. They should be cheap labour to reflect this. Small businesses can then afford to employ them and train them."
Cut business rates and VAT for hospitality businesses. She said: "These are the small businesses that historically employed many young people over holidays, from school, and gave them the skills they would use in life later on. And they are struggling to survive, which is why so many can't afford staff and there aren't many jobs out there."
Jarmila Yu, founder of YUnique Marketing Ltd, a marketing consultancy in Lightwater, Surrey, kept it to a single line:
"I'd ask for tangible incentives and support to hire your first employee. If every one-person business hired one person, we'd support business growth and positively impact the NEET situation."
This transcript has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
Aaron: There are a lot of rumours floating around, and more of them are about small business than I expected. Liz, you're not convinced much is going to happen?
Liz: I'm not necessarily convinced it's going to happen. We're in a difficult position, and their hands are tied. If he's saying he's going to balance the books, that doesn't give him much leeway. I just feel like the safest thing that could happen is nothing increases.
Aaron: I agree. So let me set the scene. The hands are tied in a few ways. Firstly, the manifesto locks: they can't raise income tax rates, National Insurance or VAT because of the promise made by Starmer and Reeves. Borrowing is around £115 billion a year.
Debt is just shy of £3 trillion, about 94% of GDP, and the interest on that is around £100 billion a year. The 10-year gilt yield is around 5.4%, the highest since the financial crash. The fiscal buffer was about £24 billion in March.
This was news to me, but it's now estimated to be near £12 billion, and some economists say as low as £5bn. That's what's got the IMF and economists most worried. Reuters interviewed nearly 20 economists recently, and they reckon the government needs to rebuild headroom of about £15 to £16 billion to keep the gilt markets calm.
On the more down-to-earth side, growth is there, which is fine. It's being revised up, fastest in the G7, although a lot of that is contextual. July GDP was up 0.4% against a forecast of zero, so we're talking about pretty low bars.
Unemployment is where it gets tricky. It's close to 5% and flat, but underneath that, payrolled employees are down about 100,000 year on year. The FTSE is up 20%, but that's a long way from everyday people's lives.
Retail jobs are down 140,000 and hospitality down 100,000. Growth projections are around 1%, with inflation at 2.8%. And underneath all of that, there's a big focus on NEETs.
Youth unemployment is now at 16%, just over 700,000 young people in the labour market, and six in 10 NEETs have never had a job.
As a small business owner, I think you have to take all of that on board. As much as we want every Budget to be good for us individually, the reality is the government doesn't have any money. It doesn't have any real levers to pull, particularly with the manifesto locks.
And even if it did pull them, you'd be looking at the highest tax levels in this country for many years. There is no growth that would allow the economy to tolerate that. And for one of the first times in many years, we're not seeing the growth we do have translate into new jobs either.
I think you've got the sneaky impact of AI happening. So we champion small business and want them to get a fair deal, but the reality is there isn't much the government can do. Daniel, thoughts on the wider picture?
Daniel: The context is helpful because it ties into what we've been calling on the government to focus on. John Healey has very little room. Not just the scale of borrowing but the cost of it has increased, so he's under a lot of pressure to find money.
The stories the Treasury has been trailing to the media, to test how the market reacts, have naturally been about banks, capital gains and family firms, alongside trying to alleviate energy costs and help with hiring young people.
Small firms feel that squeeze. Our latest Small Business Barometer found three in four owners are now paying themselves under £20,000, and that's up on last year. So our primary ask to the Chancellor was simple: don't add to the burden of small business.
Leading up to this, Ryan, our Head of Community, put a call out to members asking what they hoped to see. One, who runs an accountancy practice, told us that VAT, Making Tax Digital and changing rules are just piling paperwork onto sole traders.
They want a more predictable, easy-to-navigate system that takes away from the burden rather than adding to it.
Politically, this government is going to find it very hard to build fiscal headroom through spending cuts, so the conversation has been about where the added tax revenue comes from.
The big news today is that it won't come from an increase in capital gains tax, because it appears the Chancellor has been spooked by advice that it would quickly lead to capital flight.
Aaron: A Treasury source called the CGT plan "batshit crazy", which was probably the nail in the coffin. Liz, what do you think?
Liz: I completely agree. In previous years we've had very high expectations of Budgets: we want this slashed and that slashed, and we've got used to huge headlines every time.
You could have a realistic expectation of, say, National Insurance support for entrepreneurs. But now there's no room left, and the best solution would be no tax increases.
Having said that, what always needs to come out of these Budgets is that they support entrepreneurs and understand how small businesses operate. Because income tax and those things are off the table, it's business that gets slammed.
Quite often it feels like the government doesn't really understand, and there's an opportunity to demonstrate that it does. Some things on the table are helpful, like VAT being collected by Amazon and eBay for online sellers, which helps small businesses that are affected by foreign sellers going under the radar and pricing much more cheaply.
And business rates relief: in April, I've seen reports that rates went up by 50 to 60% for some people, so clarity on that would help.
But going back to our research, a lot of the feedback has been: we just want consistency. Don't change things for the sake of it; don't make announcements for the sake of it. Have a plan and stick to it. Then businesses can realistically work out how to plan and take on staff.
On young people, the last Prime Minister raised the minimum wage for young people, and our members tell us that's made it very difficult to employ them.
They don't have experience, so you take them on at a higher rate, and then you have to pay someone to train them. You might as well take on someone with experience. I'm not expecting them to reel that back, but some understanding that it's had an impact would help.
One of our Budget asks is around apprenticeships, but it's still very expensive for a very small business to take on an apprentice. The training is free if they're young enough, but you still have to pay them.
If you're a one-person plumbing business, you need to earn an extra £24,000 or so a year to afford that, and that's you doing extra work for no more money. So the apprenticeship system is a great route, but I'd like them to be a bit more imaginative.
Andy Burnham has made lots of small announcements, like the one on parking fines, little things that really frustrate people when they're struggling and working hard. Maybe that kind of approach could find things that help.
Aaron: I think those are the only levers he's got at the moment, and it's all the tiny stuff: making things a bit easier for pubs and so on. I don't want to demean it, because it is helpful in the round, but it's PR politics.
It's not shifting the dial. If you were a CFO coming into a company that was the UK, you'd look at this and go, wow. I could chop around the edges, make things better for small businesses and accept I'm making it worse for large businesses, or cut the NHS, or invest in it.
Every action has a consequence that's just as negative. That's where we're at as a country.
When I was at Number 10 last week, Burnham did talk about this a bit, but what needs to be front and centre is a plan for growth. At some point, whether you're a small business owner or a care home worker, we need a real conversation about what the growth plan for this country is.
They don't talk about that. The best thing you can do for small businesses is make everyone wealthier. It's the rising tide. He talked about Great British Grid yesterday, an offshoot of Great British Energy, which itself doesn't seem to get anywhere.
It's those bigger pieces that might shift the economy as a whole, and that would be the best thing for small businesses. I want to see something that puts more money in people's pockets so businesses can expect some customers sometime soon.
Daniel: It's one of my biggest bugbears in my policy career. When you look at the levers the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have to enable growth, a lot of them are structural changes to how we make policy that wouldn't cost a penny.
We're one of the worst countries in the modern world at getting planning applications through and getting things built. Energy infrastructure, housing, transport: everything the demand side of an economy needs, we are incredibly slow to build.
If you could do that, it would lead to lower energy costs, more demand, better transport links connecting our towns and regions, and it would grow the funding pot the government has to play with.
Then the conversation could shift from which part of the business world gets slammed to pay for public services, to what we can invest in.
That was demonstrated when the CEO of Nvidia came to the UK. He said this is an amazing country with a uniquely gifted pool of talent, and he clearly believes in us because he invested £10 billion here.
But he said that if the UK had a major goal and a million reasons to pursue it, it would find the one reason not to. That was a nod to our overly burdensome planning system.
If we had a growth plan and prioritised it, the Prime Minister would see there are many levers that wouldn't cost a penny.
Aaron: That's it for me. If I'm a small business owner listening to Healey next week, I'm listening for two things. What's my immediate gain: some rates relief or similar, keeping my expectations low, but I want something.
And what's the growth plan? You could raise the rate relief threshold this year and taper it next year, but that isn't changing businesses. That's making it more likely businesses survive for two years.
People don't start a business to survive. No one dreams of a decade of struggle. They go in thinking: I'll be on sale at Selfridges, I'll have an online store, eventually I'll be bought for a billion.
No one's hopes and dreams were "I really hope rate relief changes." That's survival. So small business owners need to be pushing the government on: what's the growth plan?
I'm not going to get customers through the door if no one can afford to go to the shops.
Aaron: Let's step through the rumours and give each one two scores out of 10: how likely it is to happen, and how good it would be for small businesses, where zero is terrible, and 10 is fantastic.
Aaron: On the surface, this sounds good. It might abolish rates for cafés, hairdressers and the like. I'll be surprised if this doesn't happen.
It's their flagship gesture to small businesses. Nine out of 10 for likelihood, seven for how good it is. Over the next year, that's a few grand back into the business. Short term, that's not bad.
Liz: I'm with you, nine out of 10 on whether it happens. On impact, I think a lot of our members are already out of it. They've got such small premises, or no premises, that they're not paying rates anyway, so they won't be touched by this. I'd say five. I don't think it changes anyone's plans.
Daniel: I'll be slightly more cautious. With these major announcements, the devil is always in the detail: whether it's implemented over time or immediately feeds into the impact on the high street.
I'll give it an eight. It's still highly likely because it predates the rumour mill. Andy Burnham made this a flagship point in his first weeks, and suggested it could be paid for by passing the cost to larger firms operating major warehouses.
For how good it is, I'll match Aaron's seven. It's not relevant to large parts of our community, but we convened a Growth on Hold roundtable last month with the Small Business Minister, and it was the most emotional roundtable I've chaired.
Business owners were in tears at how hard it's been to operate. This measure will slightly relieve the pressure, but it's only a near-term tool to keep them going. It's not accompanied by a long-term growth plan to help them thrive. It's an important step, though.
Aaron: I think this is pretty simple. The rises are going to be scrapped, given what's going on in the Middle East. Likelihood: 10 out of 10. Usefulness: I don't know, two out of 10. It doesn't make much difference when we have no control over the price of oil. Any dissenters?
Liz: Things like that help the customers of small businesses. It's not dramatic, but if fuel went up, that's less money people have to spend with small businesses and hospitality. Anything that supports the general public means more money to spend.
Aaron: I agree fuel costing less is good. But with the way fuel is going, I felt the same about the VAT cut on energy bills announced at the conference: you're saving £20, but the bill is going up £250 this year. Everyone's still out of pocket. So I don't see it affecting much. Daniel?
Daniel: Given it's been trailed by reputable sources, I'm inclined to believe it came directly from John Healey's team to test the reaction, so it's very likely. It's more a politically motivated, headline-grabbing policy than one that makes a material difference.
I'd give it three out of ten, because anything a small business can actually see and feel month to month is welcome. But the cost of fuel over the next few months will be determined far more by events in the Middle East than by anything John Healey does.
Aaron: This is one of those policies that's so specific it must happen; no one invents a rumour like this. 10 out of 10.
It's interesting because it's not technically more VAT, but because it's collected at source, it will catch a lot of people who aren't paying it. Some say it could raise up to £1 billion.
I think it's a good policy. It's good for the government's coffers and, as Liz said, it helps UK-based small businesses compete. Five or six out of 10 for effectiveness.
Liz: I agree. eBay have put out a report suggesting it won't make any difference, but they would, wouldn't they? It looks like it could work a bit. I don't think it's hugely impactful, but if it raises money at the expense of overseas sellers dodging the rules, all good.
Daniel: Highly likely, and we'll be very pleased to see it from a fairness perspective. We joined Amazon's call to make this happen and wrote to John Healey's team a year ago.
Right now, platforms collect VAT for overseas sellers while UK sellers sort their own, and there's a lot of evidence that overseas traders pose as UK firms to get round the rules. That undercuts honest people playing by the rules.
I'd give it an eight for likelihood. The impact depends on implementation. On the day, I'll be looking for a start date and, importantly, a clear promise that sellers under the £90,000 threshold are kept out of it. If those terms are met, six out of 10.
Anything that catches people below the threshold would be a barrier to entering the marketplace.
Aaron: The so-called raid on family business. This is the one getting the headlines, and the one I'm most confused by. Estimates are around £300 million a year.
For that much negative press, that's not a big upside, so I'm surprised they're doing it. But it's too specific and too left-field not to be real.
Seven or eight out of 10 for likelihood, maybe seven given how strong the backlash has been. On effectiveness, I can't see it offering the government much, and for family businesses it's clearly a negative.
Bad idea, bad press, not much upside, and it will anger a lot of people. Bad politics.
Liz: I agree. I thought this government wasn't going to do this sort of briefing, but occasionally they throw something out to see what people think. I think it would be a massive mistake.
It goes back to the question of whether the government understands how businesses operate. I don't think it does. This would affect my own family.
A relative's family runs a garage that employs about 20 people. His dad runs it; he's worked there his whole life and will take it on eventually.
The idea that when his dad retires he has to pay a lump sum to the government to carry on running the business he's been part of his whole working life is crazy. They're not rich people.
Aaron: The number of stories that will come out of people in exactly that situation. Is this worth it? It's not sensible politics.
Liz: These are businesses that have been around for 40 years. They've been through the financial crash, COVID, Brexit, the cost of living crisis.
They've got to the point where the owners are about to retire, and then their kids can't afford to run it, even though they've been trained and put through all of that. I think it's outrageous.
So I think it's unlikely to happen: five or six out of 10. On effectiveness, I don't think it raises much revenue, it would be demoralising, it would turn a lot of businesses against Labour, and it would be a pointless exercise. Zero out of 10.
Aaron: Agreed. But I'll tell you who loves a policy calamity: Daniel. What do you think?
Daniel: Speaking personally, and from an Enterprise Nation perspective, because the clue is in our name: the policy is regressive.
Raising up to £300 million a year is not worth the trade-off, both the direct impact and the optics of what this government thinks about people who want to build businesses that pass from generation to generation.
If it happened, I'd put it on a par with the infamous 2012 pasty tax that immediately unravelled. A calamitous own goal.
We've been really clear on this. A founder who builds a business to hand on to their children is doing precisely what this country needs. Taxing that handover more heavily than a sale to a stranger creates a contradiction: it would make it more cost-effective to sell to a complete stranger than to hand the business to your children.
That tells every founder that building an enterprise to last is a waste of time. In practice it would push people to sell now or hand over now, and we'd be likely to lose longstanding firms from our high streets.
It also comes on top of cuts to inheritance tax relief and higher dividend tax. Each one might look small to John Healey and his team, but taken together it tells the country that building a business makes you a target.
I'm encouraged that the only major outlet reporting this has been the Telegraph; the fact that left-leaning outlets haven't trailed it puts it in the less likely bracket. I'd put likelihood at four, though that could rise as 28 October gets closer and it becomes clear they have few other ideas for raising revenue.
On impact, I'm happy to join Liz at zero out of ten. It's a multifaceted car crash of a policy idea.
Aaron: A pile-up.
Aaron: Burnham wants to come down hard on this. Exactly how, I don't know, but he's going to make it harder for them to trade. I have a real issue with it, because I don't think it's a solution to anything other than PR.
It doesn't revive the high street as it's being presented, because you're replacing a vape shop with another boarded-up window. By all means, hike the sin taxes; I'm a big fan of that.
But the problem with the high street isn't too many vape shops or betting shops. The problem is that it's very difficult for other businesses to survive there because of the economy.
I understand the moral crusade, but I'm not buying "save the high street by getting rid of the bad apples". The problem is much bigger than that.
Liz: There are very few options for viable businesses on the high street. Hairdressers and services make sense. We've got lots of nail bars near me that only take cash; I went to one recently and was told: "cash please".
I guess you could see betting shops and vape shops as a threat to young people who aren't working, and that's why it's seen as negative. But the economy isn't going to sustain anything else at the moment.
It does show a sign, though, and it's important for the government to say: we want to make changes, and this is an easy target.
When I interviewed Perky Blenders for Daniel's high streets report, the owner told me about a business opening opposite her.
She went over and offered help with employing people; they said great, thanks, and then they shut down a week later.
If you're a small business and you see that going on around you, you must think, what is going on here? So I don't think it's a terrible thing, and it's already been announced, really. Very likely to happen.
Effectiveness, maybe four out of 10 in the short term. But it demonstrates: if we can't help with costs, perhaps we can help with competition and the way the high street looks.
Daniel: I'll keep mine brief. Nine out of 10, highly likely. It's a very politically astute move that cuts across the cultural zeitgeist; podcasters and influencers are talking about these shops springing up.
It also came up in the Growth on Hold roundtable: why am I bothering to go through all the Making Tax Digital processes when the outlet two doors down only takes cash and clearly isn't playing by the rules?
It cuts to this intrinsic British ideal of fairness, and politically that makes it very useful. By itself, four out of 10. It will help small businesses having a hard time on the high street feel a bit better, but if it isn't accompanied by meaningful measures to bear down on their operating costs, it won't help them.
Aaron: There's some stuff that's apparently been ruled out, like the warehouse rates rise on online retailers, which I'm annoyed about. Surely we're not taxing the large online corporates enough. Disappointing.
Daniel: That's news to me. If that's been ruled out, where is the money coming from for the measures we've talked about?
Aaron: We don't know anything for certain. But I think there's a fair bit of cowardice going on. Sometimes you have to draw a line and say we've got principles: rates will rise if you're here.
There are clear advantages to having warehouses in this country in terms of distribution times, so you've got leverage.
In summary, Burnham's Labour has a really hard job, and it's not clear what to do. I hope the small business rates relief comes in; that's the best small business can hope for right now. But as someone who works at Enterprise Nation and as a citizen, what I really want to see is an actual growth plan for the country.
Not just the change to the triple lock that's coming, but what we're going to do with that money. How we're investing in energy, in AI, in whatever the growth areas are that lift the economy as a whole. That's what I want to hear next week, and I'm not sure we will.
Liz: There's nothing you can point to and say, yes, that's going to happen. Income tax thresholds would be a really good one, because that would help the small businesses we know are paying themselves much less, and their customers too.
Aaron: We need investment from somewhere. If we don't have the money internally because we can't borrow and can't cut enough, we've got to get it from outside. I'd like to see swathes of secure foreign investment coming into this country.
We meet a lot of businesses with fantastic ideas and IP who are looking for investment. But that's all part of a bigger plan that needs to happen, and they need to speak to it.
Daniel: That completely lends itself to a clearly communicated growth plan, because that's what creates the policy and regulatory certainty that incentivises investment. This government must prioritise that, quickly.
