That it’s hardly an original observation doesn’t make it any less true: the Chancellor has been dealt an awful hand.

The economy she inherited is characterised by persistently low productivity, high inequality, catastrophically weak investment and rising debt servicing costs.  The last UK Parliament was the worst on record for real household income growth.

Meanwhile, taxes have risen but real investment in most public services has not, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. The tax system is widely regarded as dysfunctional and the benefits system fails to provide many with acceptable living standards.

Read more:

It's difficult not to despair as bearish commentators queue up to stress the Chancellor’s limited room for manoeuvre. Any calls to increase spending are met with furious references to the Truss/Kwarteng debacle. The bond vigilantes continue to lurk, we are told, ready to punish any sign of irresponsible borrowing. There is, apparently, no option but to further tighten the Treasury purse strings and hope that events might conspire to produce more rapid growth.

While this deep pessimism might be understandable, it is nevertheless a very poor basis for effective economic policy. Truth is that there is much the Chancellor can do in the coming Budget. She herself recently noted that if “growth is the challenge, then investment is the solution".

How might the coming Budget start to construct this solution?

First, as has been increasingly recognised, the current fiscal rules are not fit for purpose and should be amended. Doing so will provide the government with greater scope to boost investment, and investment is desperately needed: among the G7, the UK has had the lowest level of economy-wide investment in 24 of the last 30 years.

To many, the efficacy of fiscal rules might seem like the most arcane of issues and others will worry about politicians shifting the goalposts. But inappropriate rules have serious real-world consequences.

It makes no sense to persist with rules which arbitrarily undermine the government’s ability to invest for the future. Public investment can help to boost growth, reduce inequality, increase tax revenues and improve long-term fiscal sustainability.

Read more:

In a recent report, IPPR argued that the government’s "debt rule" should use a broader measure of debt and assets, one that better accounts for the positive effects of government spending. The new rule we propose – that public sector net worth should be increasing in year five of the forecast – would provide an additional £57 billion of headroom against the previous government’s debt rule.

We also propose that this new rule should be complemented by measures to ensure that investment provides value for money and is effectively aligned with the government’s five missions. A public investment watchdog should be established, potentially as part of the OBR, to monitor quality and provide a high level of transparency about the choice of projects.

In his foreword to our report, Lord Jim O’Neil argues that financial markets would "celebrate" this approach: “Bond investors understand that borrowing to invest – if part of a clear plan – increases future growth and improves the government's financial position."

Read more:

We also recommend that the Chancellor replace the current "day-to-day costs are met by revenues" rule with a new "structural current balance" rule which would better reflect the current state of the economy. It would allow for both moderately higher borrowing if the economy is performing below its potential and fiscal tightening if the economy is operating at or above capacity.

Next, although the tax system will not be perfected in a single Budget, the Chancellor can start the process of progressive reform. The current system is overly complex, fails to tax wealth sufficiently and, more controversially perhaps, fails to generate sufficient revenues to support the level and quality of services demanded of government in a 21st century ageing society that must rapidly transition to a net zero economy.

In the short to medium term, additional revenues should be contributed by those with the broadest shoulders. This means ensuring that the lucky few who can generate income from wealth are taxed at the same rate as the rest of the population whose income comes from work.

In the longer-term a serious conversation is required about how the costs of an ageing society and the net zero transition are best shared across society.

What we don’t need in the Budget is more ministerial pandering to business lobbyists on "red-tape". Where barriers to development and investment exist, they should be precisely specified and detailed remedies proposed. Inevitable trade-offs with consumer, worker and environmental interests will have to be confronted, not ignored.

Read more:

Making progress on the government’s missions over the course of this Parliament will require higher spending. This and future budgets will have to be bold, confronting the innate fiscal conservatism of the Treasury and much of the commentariat.

Will the public support a bold approach?

In another recent report IPPR found that a Labour government which is perceived to have delivered on its "tax, borrowing and spending promises" but failed to deliver change in public services will be judged a failure and punished by voters. Instead, the public prefer the government to borrow more, find additional tax revenues (within their rules) and deliver better public services.

These findings should give the Chancellor confidence to be bold at the Budget. The additional fiscal space created by changing the fiscal rules and tax reforms should be targeted at raising investment to drive growth and on preventing a second round of austerity in public services.

Our research shows that this is what voters want: they will reward a government that delivers and punish one which doesn’t. Now is the time to deliver a "decade of national renewal".

Stephen Boyd is the director of IPPR Scotland