Blair's loyal friends

Irwin Stelzer joins Berlusconi and backs Blair as EU president

For the sake of his (admittedly tenuous) relationship with the left, Tony Blair must hope that a man is not judged by his friends. After Silvio Berlusconi backed Blair to become the first president of Europe, Rupert Murdoch's intellectual guru, Irwin Stelzer, today adds his support to the campaign.

Stelzer's endorsement of Blair in the Guardian is likely to prompt cries of "Betrayal!" from Bill Cash et al. He writes:

I yield to no one in my dislike of the unaccountable, kleptocratic bureaucracy and its appropriation to itself of the prerogatives of parliament. But you lost that fight when your prime minister reneged on his promise of a referendum and signed the constitution -- er, treaty. The EU's interest, which is what the role is all about now, is clearly in appointing (elections are not the thing in the EU) a famous, dynamic leader who can give it instant credibility on the world stage.

Stelzer does not touch on the Eurosceptics' nightmare: that David Cameron will be left in office but not in power as Blair's EU acquires ever more authority. But he does offer his own take on Labour's internal strife.

In something of an overture to James Purnell and David Miliband, Stelzer remarks of Blair:

He did make voters realise that they should be in charge, achieve at least some reforms, and create a dialogue that will make others possible once the Brown regime passes into opposition and Blairites regain control of the Labour Party.

Yet there's no chance of that happening while the trade unions retain a third of the votes in Labour's electoral college. In a typical display of eloquence, Derek Simpson, the joint head of Unite, recently branded Purnell, Miliband and Peter Mandelson "thick" and "Tories".

Far more likely is that the centre-left "dream ticket" of Harriet Harman and Jon Cruddas will be elected, backed by the Compass wing of the party.

The Blairites had better hope that their man makes it to Brussels.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

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.