I am conflicted. 

In the age of tariffs and free trade and making stuff that the world wants, how is it a Government can then argue that you have to buy wool? 

If you are redecorating, or building, or refurbishing a major chunk of your consideration will be around cost. 

Can wool outprice what might be your desire for the cheapest product going? No, it can't. 

Can wool mount an argument that over time it pays its way? Possibly. 

Then we come to the patriotic side. Should we support things that we are good at? I think yes. 

If you are a regular, you will know no one loves wool more than me. I'd pay anything to support wool because I'm a natural fibre geek. 

Polyester should be a crime and banned. 

Funnily enough, I read a report yesterday about the return of fake fur. Fake fur is now so good you can't tell the difference, but it is made out of petrochemicals. So in banning the real thing to save the animals, we have simply set about trashing the Earth some more to quell the demand for fur that never went away. 

The demand for cheap flooring is driven solely by price. Wool, for what it lacks in price, makes up for in vibe. It's amazing in both carpets and jerseys. 

But is the Government picking winners or is the Government artificially backing one over another, and if they are in that business, where is the line? 

Why is it okay to make you buy wool, but at the same time allow any number of new building products into the market to cheapen the price of building a house? Why aren't they making you buy GIB? 

It's price one day and quality the next. There is an inconsistency in this. 

The wool fan in me says go for it. Wool needs and deserves help. It's been badly treated and if this programme makes a difference, then we can all feel good about it. 

But the purist in me says, for a free trader, we favour quality and wool is quality. 

But the reason we don’t make a lot of stuff is because we can't make it at a price we want to buy it at, and that is smart, sensible business.