Rules of engagement

The latest hostage situation leaves many wondering how best to approach already complicated relation

The diplomatic stand off that began on March 23 between the Iranian and British governments finally came to an end on April 4, to the delight of everyone involved. Sunny Hundal had a view shared by many who did not believe the increasingly strong publicity rallying behind the British government. He said, “This is not to say Iran’s actions were justified or right but any call for war was just idiotic posturing that the Foreign Office was never going to take seriously.”

It remains to be seen whether or not we will ever find out the true version of events which led to this hostage crisis. Iain Dale said he had “conflicting emotions while watching the conversations between the Navy personnel and the Iranian President after his press conference. I’m sure many of us could say the same. Craig Murray said it was evidence that a "softly, softly" approach could prove effective with Iran.

It is nearly election time again for local councils in England, for the Welsh Assembly and for the Scottish Parliament. Mike Tansey pointed out how there are 16 independent candidates for the Sunderland local election who had submitted their nomination papers by the time nominations closed on Wednesday. And for anyone who missed the drunken antics of a young Lib-Dem candidate in Scotland, the Ridiculous Politics blog has the details.

The Spy blog questions the Government’s latest plans to introduce ‘shouting’ CCTV cameras. This blog hits the nail right on the head. It asks, “The immediate question which springs to mind is why the existing CCTV
surveillance cameras, linked as they must be to a live camera operator in a control room, they have not already eliminated such behaviour? That is the false promise on which hundreds of millions of pounds of Central Government and Local Government funds have been spent on such systems.”

And Ellee Seymour highlighted details of a woman who won an industrial tribunal this week against her employer which sacked her for blogging while at work. Under the pseudonym of La Petite Anglaise, Catherine Sanderson won a year’s salary, plus costs, after the tribunal agreed there was no evidence to prove she had brought disrepute to the company. She had often blogged from work at Dixon Wilson, where she worked as a secretary. She has also won a lucrative book deal in which she tells her story in full.

Adam Haigh studies on the postgraduate journalism diploma at Cardiff University. Last year he lived in Honduras and worked freelance for the newspaper, Honduras This Week.
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.