This week we were treated/subjected (delete as you see fit) to the first televised debate of the general election campaign. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak faced off against Leader of the Opposition Sir Keir Starmer, the man who all the polls suggest will be waltzing into Number 10 in exactly a month’s time.

Not unsurprisingly, economic policy featured as a key battleground issue between the two men. Sunak repeatedly attacked his opposite number on taxation – claiming a vote for Labour was a vote to increase every family’s taxes by £2,000. Starmer hit back with an even bigger number, saying that the Conservatives have pledged to make £71 billion of unfunded tax cuts by abolishing National Insurance Contributions and Inheritance Tax.

The veracity of both allegations quickly came in for scrutiny. The Prime Minister got a ticking off from James Bowler, the Treasury Permanent Secretary, who requested that the £2,000 figure should not be presented as civil service analysis. Starmer’s costings, meanwhile, rely on some pretty unlikely assumptions – such as NICs being junked from day one. Truly, there really is nothing inevitable in life apart from death and taxes (and dubious claims about them).

What is not up for debate, however, is that if the state is to pay its way without increasing the tax burden, meaningful economic growth is utterly indispensable. Even fractions of a percent can make a world of difference. Official forecasts currently estimate medium-term growth of 1.8%, but as noted in this week’s Economist, most analysts expect a figure closer to 1.5%. If the gloomier outlook proves correct, a £30 billion gap is left in the public finances. (What’s more, if we stick to the post-2008 growth trend of just 1.1%, that gap becomes a gaping £60 billion chasm.)

Clearly, whoever comes to power will need an ironclad plan to get the economy whirring again. As luck would have it, just yesterday we published our latest report, which includes more than a few ideas on how to do just that.

The culmination of months of research, roundtables and digesting Call for Evidence responses, Backing Breakthrough Businesses looks at a particular segment of Britain’s business community – namely those businesses which have scaled to mid-size, and are now at a crossroads in their growth journey. They could either plateau, satisfied with what they’ve managed to achieve so far. Founders could sell up, and move onto something new. Or they could double-down, and have a crack at breaking through and becoming genuinely large in size, and a significant part of the domestic – and possibly international – economy.

It’s not for us to tell entrepreneurs what to do, but a lot do tell us that they often feel Britain doesn’t do enough to incentivise founders who want to choose the latter of those three options. Certainly, that’s the opinion of Steve Rigby, Chair and supporting partner of the Private Business Commission, which we set up specifically to oversee this research. As he writes in his foreword to the report, Breakthrough Businesses “have the potential to become structurally important in their region or industry. By focusing on removing barriers to business growth, we can support this critical but frequently overlooked cohort and help the UK regain its standing on the world stage.”

Our policy proposals focus on four distinct areas – access to funding, the state of our capital markets, tax incentives and employee ownership schemes. I won’t trot through all the recommendations, but to whet your appetites, here’s a couple we see as being particularly important.

First up, whoever forms the next government should commit to increasing the independence of the British Business Bank. You might have seen this covered by The Times, with Sam Smith, finnCap founder and one of our Commissioners, saying: “Everything becomes more difficult, and you’re less able to really drill down into what private companies actually need, when it’s government owned,” and: “There is a nervousness around whether [capital] is going to the right places, and backing the right things.”

Second, the investment limits for the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and its seed-stage equivalent SEIS should be increased. On this point, Chris Hulatt, co-founder of Octopus Group and another Commissioner, notes: “Even if you simply adjusted the limits to reflect inflation, you could get to a higher figure and remove this cliff edge that businesses can face.” He goes on to say that fixing this would improve the environment for follow-on funding, which he argues is one of the reasons why many businesses fail to reach their potential in Britain, and feel they have to sell out to overseas investors where capital pools are larger.

You’ll have to read the report in full for the other recommendations, but suffice to say, we’d love to hear what you make of them. And to everyone who engaged with us on it along the way – thank you.