There’s a glaring contradiction at the heart of Hunt’s plan

According to the Chancellor, the three top priorities for the economy at this crucial moment are “stability, growth and public services”. But hang on, those three things aren’t really of the same logical order, are they? The first two may be judged and argued about from different perspectives and by differing criteria. But the third one is a very concrete matter: public services like health and education have clearly measurable outcomes where value for money and effective delivery can be monitored.

It is rather odd to lump them together. To do this was presumably a political decision meant to suggest that public services are very, very precious to the Government and will not be downgraded in the interests of the traditional economic concerns (like “stability” and “growth”) which fewer ordinary people understand.

In the Autumn Statement, there was quite a lot of this messing around with language which was intended to provide reassurance that Jeremy Hunt and his Prime Minister understood the full-blown reality of the problems we face but, at the same time, were determined to maintain all those familiar promises of security – in the form of sacrosanct sectors like the National Health Service and the benefits system to which the nation was accustomed.

The possibility was never entertained that it was precisely the levels of spending on public services that was helping to undermine stability and growth.

Somehow, we would have to reconcile raising benefits in line with inflation with a “sound money” philosophy which forbade more unfunded borrowing commitments – even if that very benefit system might be contributing to our debt, not just because it cost a lot of money but also because it was an effective disincentive to work. There was one little nod to this issue: Mr Hunt proposed that some of those working part-time and receiving Universal Credit could be “called in to interviews” in which the possibility of them working more hours might be examined. We will have to wait and see how effective this gentle persuasion turns out to be.

But it was not just public spending that was a bad fit with Mr Hunt’s philosophy. There was a strange anomaly in his account of the British virtues which he enumerated on several occasions. They included hard work, world-beating innovation and compassion.

The Chancellor seemed to imply that, while these things did co-exist, they could be contradictory and that somehow the Government would find a way to encompass them all. However, he then proceeded to outline a series of penalties for precisely the kind of development that would follow from that innovation and hard work: new and increased taxes on growing companies and entrepreneurs. That was, you might suppose, the “compassion” bit.

The extra taxation would go to fund the services (and the benefits) that were aimed at the disadvantaged and thus make it unnecessary for the country to incur more debt.

This neatly misses the crucial point: that hard work and innovation are compassionate by their nature. They create opportunity and personal fulfilment as well as providing real economic growth. Yes indeed, Mr Hunt, as you put it so well: the British are tough, inventive and resourceful. If you reward them for that, the growth and stability might take care of themselves.