A little over a century since Ford’s Model T first allowed the average American to drive their own motor car, the manufacturing giant is threatening to take them away from the wheel. Or at least the appointment of a new chief executive, drawn from its autonomous cars division rather than the motor manufacturing mainstream, might suggest.

Those reading the runes from Detroit see the elevation of Jim Hackett, an industry outsider who runs the smart mobility unit at Ford, as another significant step forward into a future where driverless cars become the norm. How imminent that future is remains up for debate. Certainly, there is great confidence among the manufacturers that the technological capability is around the corner – and they have ploughed in billions in investment.

Ford itself should not be seen as emblematic of the 20th-century petrol past: it has, less noisily than some, set up its own billion-dollar labs and artificial intelligence projects. But perception can count for a lot with investors: Ford’s stock market valuation has dipped and – despite their huge disparity in global sales – the car giant has recently suffered the indignity of being overtaken by upstart Tesla in terms of stock-market value.

Hackett, regarded as a “futurist”, is the kind of leader that the current Ford chairman – four generations down the line from the original Henry – sees as vital to the next step, bridging the gap between Silicon Valley and Detroit at a time when the experiments of the tech giants are threatening their future.

The opportunities for Ford in an autonomous future are legion, but remain deeply uncertain. A wholesale revolution in transport could see a world clamouring for new, repurposed vehicles. But the concept of ownership is also likely to change: autonomy and connection could mean fewer cars needed, and fewer traditional consumers persuaded of the merits of having their own Ford parked on the drive.

Meanwhile, society can hope for safer roads and greener, cleaner electric vehicles: it makes little sense for the champions of autonomy to trumpet fewer road deaths while still poisoning humans with dirty air.

However, generations brought up on the hollow promise that increased automation could bring greater leisure might be sceptical of the claims for an autonomous future.

While there is great appeal in the idea of reclining with a drink inside one’s Ford Fiesta, circa 2030, oblivious to the congested M25 the car is safely navigating, the sliproad to this nirvana may be bumpy. Witness the travails of some of Tesla’s staff, in the pioneering factory in Fremont, reportedly suffering all too human problems as their billionaire visionary boss, Elon Musk, ramps up production.

Will autonomy bring more freedom? Possibly, but it runs counter to the prevailing mood, where politicians appeal to the public with promises of taking back control. And it would be difficult to dismiss as simple luddites those drivers who just see another form of employment poised to disappear.

Hackett was described by the Financial Times as Ford’s new “philosopher-in-chief”, in an industry that is having to reimagine its product and future consumers in radical ways.

The putative roadmap to a world where vehicles are all capable of full autonomy, negotiating every aspect of every journey, is thought by most to be at its most hazardous halfway along. The point at which the driver can allow most – but not all – functions to be conducted by the car, and the roads are still shared by humans and machines, is where most pioneers in the field – and insurers – foresee trouble.

Ford has been reported to be focusing its energies on vehicles one step beyond this, a car where the human driver is all but redundant. That vehicle is likely to exist in four years. The challenge for the motor industry’s philosophers is how to get those who will have to share the road with it ready for its arrival.

Gambling industry bets the wrong way on FOBTs

They are the bookmaking industry’s cash cows. Fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) are controversial machines that let punters stake £100 every 20 seconds. And bookies now suck 56% of their revenue – more than £1.8bn a year – from these electronic casino machines, according to the Gambling Commission. That means each machine brings in nearly £53,000 a year.

Of course, that money does not simply disappear out of the economy. The taxman takes a chunk – about £400m at last count. The Association of British Bookmakers says this money would be at risk if a government review, due within weeks, recommends that maximum stakes are cut. This would also, they say, force the closure of high street betting shops, leading to job losses.

But this argument assumes no positive effect at all from stake reduction. A recent study by Landman Economics concluded that FOBTs are actually a drain on the economy, even when their tax contribution is taken into account. (Although it should be said that the report was commissioned by an anti-FOBT group, the Campaign for Fairer Gambling, which bookmakers say has links to the casino industry.)

The report’s author, Howard Reed, former chief economist at the Institute for Public Policy Research, is no casino shill. He has calculated the net effect of the machines to be a £1.3bn loss to the Treasury. There are also indirect costs such as police callouts when punters smash machines – such a common occurrence that CCTV footage of such incidents is easily found on YouTube.

Insiders expect the government to respond to public concern by reducing FOBT stakes, albeit not to the £2 maximum promised by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in their election manifestos.

But if that happens, bookmakers will have only themselves to blame. Instead of meeting critics halfway or proposing solutions, they have engaged in a PR war, deciding that attack is the best form of defence. That is looking less and less like the smart bet.

A weak clothing market – or just weak excuses?

The month must be May, because there’s another revival plan under way at Marks & Spencer, and another chief executive trying to explain why it isn’t going well.

A year after taking charge at the retailer, Steve Rowe blamed weakening sales on a generally weak clothing market and a reduction in discounting.

There was another serious worry too. Marks & Spencer posted a decline in food sales – they were down 2.1% in the first three months of this year, although this was partly the result of the later timing of Easter.

With consumers now facing a cash squeeze, clothing and food retailers cannot afford to miss a step.

M&S must up its game, moving away from former boss Marc Bolland’s focus on increasing profit margins towards giving shoppers a better deal on quality, style and price.

Middle-aged women have little choice if they want stylish clothes, so if M&S can finally provide, Rowe won’t need to make any more excuses.