On this evidence, the Chancellor would appear to be a bloodless, technocratic sort of fellow — a remorseless (as well as a rather conceited) bean-counter, eager to pump the ordinary taxpayer for all he is worth even as he indulges big companies, which are promised ever-decreasing rates of corporation tax. He plainly has not taken Mrs May’s concern for the “Jams” much to heart. Unsurprisingly, it did not take long for the Treasury and Number Ten to cross swords. Hammond’s advisers were quoted in the Sunday Times as saying that Theresa May’s aides were “economically illiterate”, while they retaliated by suggesting that the Prime Minister had not supported the rise in national insurance which had been “smuggled into the Budget”. The latter claim can hardly have been true, since the measure was trailed in the press for several days before the Budget.

Given the divergent political outlooks of Mrs May and Mr Hammond, and the pugilistic inclinations of Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, trouble may well lie ahead. It would be bad for the government and the country, particularly during delicate negotiations with the European Union, if relations between Number Ten and the Treasury were to sour. We had quite enough of that during the Blair/Brown years. That said, Mrs May and her advisers were surely right to force Mr Hammond into withdrawing his proposal for higher national insurance for the self-employed. But the cost of this strong-arming may be that both the Chancellor and the Treasury are already nursing an animus against Number Ten.

The question is the degree to which the Prime Minister can help the “Jams” and improve social justice during a period of continuing belt-tightening. It is true there are some things the government could do which might not be particularly expensive. Most of us would cheer if the rapacious energy and utility companies — so greedily oblivious to the interests of the “Jams” — were taken to task, though I don’t suppose Mr Hammond would be overjoyed. But better hospitals and schools cost money and there isn’t an awful lot of it about. Nor does the government have much, if any, room to cut income tax for lower- and middle-income earners. There is a danger that Mrs May’s inspiring talk of helping hard-pressed people will ring rather hollow as it becomes clear that her options are limited.

Moreover, such scope as the Government may have will be further reduced if there is an economic slowdown or recession, which after seven or eight years of growth may well be on the cards, since economic cycles always come to an end. Needless to say, any downturn would be immediately blamed by Remainers on Brexit, even if it were not the cause. In such circumstances, Theresa May’s position, at present so commanding, would inevitably weaken — the more so if Labour were able to eject Jeremy Corbyn and acquire a proper leader. The Tory backbench rebellion over national insurance reminds us how the government’s small overall majority leaves it extremely vulnerable. Isn’t it likely that over the next couple of years Conservative Remainers in the Commons will prove less accommodating than they turned out to be over the triggering of Article 50?