Steph McGovern

But I think it's wrong to just keep hitting businesses and asking businesses to take the hit.

Because first of all, it's massively bureaucratic in terms of doing all this price stuff.

Because what are we talking about?

Is this every loaf of bread?

Or is it the own version of their bread?

Is it the branded versions of bread?

And then how is that going to pass down to the supplier?

Or do they take the hit?

Does the supplier take the hit?

Where does that happen?

And then, you know, even just the price...

structuring in terms of payments on the system and okay it's much easier because it's digital now but still there's a lot of things that need to happen in order to reduce the prices or cap the prices in the way they want and a lot of questions that need answering and essentially who is going to take that hit and so I

think it's just a bit rich to keep going at businesses to be the ones that have to try and make the cost of living better for people when let's face it a lot of the reasons why we've had you know unemployment rising and businesses not investing as much is because of the hit they've taken already on the 40 billion pounds worth of taxes they all got in Rachel Reeves's first budget and so therefore I guess my answer is no.

Yeah.

And it just feels a bit gimmicky, doesn't it?

It feels like a desperate... It's a clear message to people, isn't it?

The government is going to make your shopping bill not get any bigger, but the reality is it probably would put it up.

Yeah, well, it's because we're seeing this energy cap come in.

So, you know, we've just been talking about not doing a food cap because it'll make no difference.

But what genuinely has made a difference in terms of how much the cost of living is going up by is this energy cap.