editor’s letter
I like the spat between Sir James Dyson and Jeremy Hunt. According to insiders – you know, INSIDERS!
– the chancellor didn’t take Dyson’s criticism of his economic policy well. The pair met in Downing Street a week or so ago. Dyson has been very vocal in support of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s disastrous mini budget. I suppose if you’re a billionaire you’re somewhat insulated from crippling mortgage rises.
According to a source – you know, a SOURCE! – the bagless vacuum king has been so annoyed recently at government fiscal plans, and at corporation tax deadweighting growth, that he has been writing “quite aggressive letters” to the treasury. So Hunt had him in for a meeting. On a sidenote here, if you’re not getting responses to your letters to government, keep going! You never know!
Anyway, the meeting didn’t go well. According to somebody familiar with the meeting – you know, FAMILIAR!
– it was “fiery” and ended up with Hunt telling Dyson if he thought he could do a better job of being chancellor, well, why didn’t he bloody go and do that then. Or words to that effect. At this point, in my mind, big Brexiteer Dyson made a catty remark about the hand dryers at No 11 being useless and flounced out. Though there is no evidence for this.
I quite like Hunt’s impatience. It is a sliver away from saying, if you like Truss and Kwarteng’s tax-slash disaster so much, why don’t you marry it. It doesn’t say much for a coherent fiscal policy, but at least shows a human side and one that, in a moment of frustrated clarity, probably illustrates that the chancellor himself realises he has run out of road.
Maybe Dyson has a point. There isn’t going to be much oomph in the engine until you do something to get the engine running. Dyson speaks as a believer in entrepreneurship being the solution. There is nothing wrong with entrepreneurship, but eventually that does rather help the entrepreneur, or at least the shareholders he grows to serve, and perhaps not the population as a whole.
Rachel Reeves, who is looking most likely to move into No 11 after the election, has been saying she is, essentially, going to go for a slow and steady approach. Because, as we all know, voters love politicians who can illustrate they understand the moral of one of Aesop’s Fables. But that doesn’t feel like it’ll cut any mustard, certainly not with the quite aggressive l
