What do you get when you cross a burrito with a drone?

Business as Usual - this week's most unusual business idea.

An unusual little business idea recently highlighted how blinkered governments have been in their deployment of drones in recent years. Invented by three young developers, the Burrito Bomber is a mini drone that tracks customers' locations via their smartphones and drops a burrito into onto their doorsteps. Mini aircraft flying around dropping takeaways out of the sky may seem bizarre and unnecessary but the prospect of using the same technology to deliver food and supplies to remote or war-torn areas is promising.

The founders are ready to launch their idea as a fully fledged business but have been blocked by the Federal Aviation Administration because commercial drones are not allowed. At the same time the use of government-operated armed drones is increasing. As these mini weapons cruise the skies the world over, and the number of drone-related casualties mount up, any focus on the potential good unmanned aircraft can have seems to have fallen by the wayside. 

In the UK over £2bn has been spent on military drones and in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, where covert US drone strikes are taking place, the number of civilian deaths by drone currently stands at 1,123 according to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. By preferring to focus on the drone as weapon rather than as a humanitarian tool governments have presented this innovative and versatile technology as an object of fear. While glibly presented, the Burrito Bomber presents an alternative reality for drone use. Whether or not governments choose to adopt a similarly positive approach remains to be seen.

Fast food. Photograph: Getty Images
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.