´óÏó´«Ã½

Was Sir Richard Lambert's speech on Monday something of a job application? I ask that because the out-going director-general of the CBI is among the leading contenders to become the next chairman of the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Trust.

But hang on, you'll no doubt say. You surely don't persuade ministers to give you a big job by launching a robust and very public attack on their economic policy?

Yesterday, in what was his last speech at the CBI, Sir Richard accused ministers of lacking "vision" for the economy, and lacking a "strategy" for growth.

It must have come as something as a surprise kick-in-the-teeth to ministers, as previously they regarded the CBI boss as being on their side.

The question of who becomes ´óÏó´«Ã½ Chairman is a subtle game. The two leading contenders seem to be Lambert and the former minister and governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten.

And the big question, which will no doubt be asked once the winner is announced, is whether they would be a government stooge.

Nobody could accuse Patten of being a Tory stooge. True, he was chairman of the Conservative Party 20 years ago, but he's had few dealings with the Tories in recent years.

And even in the 1980s and 1990s he showed himself to be pretty independent of Margaret Thatcher (over economic policy) and John Major (over Hong Kong).

And the Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt knows that Patten's appointment would cause a big stink with right-wing backbenchers.

Which is where Lambert's speech comes into play. Yesterday Lambert suggested that he, too, would be no government yes-man.

All of which augurs pretty well for the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

The Director-General Mark Thompson has remarked that he much prefers it when the ´óÏó´«Ã½ chairman is someone whose politics are from the side of governing party, simply because they are then much more inclined to demonstrate just how independent of the government they are.