Fraser Dahdouh grew up in Stroud and has a place to study economics, politics and international relations at Oxford Brookes in September

FISCAL policy is a zero sum game.

This is what the model of acute household finance would state. We do know however, that this fails to account for fundamental concepts of Keynesian macro economy (all forms of supply side policy) or the idea that a period of fiscal deficit can balance the budget with a resultant period of fiscal surplus.

However, when we look to amend failures of current fiscal policy and supply side failure - examples being stagnating productivity or a short supply of NHS nurses - it becomes clear that this change is met with popular distaste.

Take the case of full time NHS nurses needing to use food banks, of course this means for many students considering a career in nursing, that they will either go into employment with a private firm or they will consider another line of work; hence, the labour market sustains its short supply of nurses, provoking a further array of failing in our health service. This idea that it would not be fair to - as is done to pay our nurses in our country - levy a progressive tax against the rich is also raised. Indeed this is a vital line of thought we must employ. As the Labour manifesto has proposed to raise income by five pence in the pound on income over both £80,000 and £123,000, is it fair these earners should have to pay more for nurses to earn a fair wage?

To be dialectical however, we must also re-phrase the question, as herein lies the pay-off. Is it fair, that for high earners to keep the extra 5p in every pound they earn over the aforementioned sums, that the failings, such as the risk for the nurses running our hospitals having to use food banks to feed themselves should continue? For society to make an informed decision this June, they must be aware of both the cost of change and the cost of inertia, then it is for them to judge which option bestows the greatest burden.