This is why I’ve got a problem with Dave

Cameron’s priorities are revealing — and wrong.

I had lunch with an apolitical friend of mine, who voted Lib Dem at the last election, hates Labour, and wondered why I spend so much time criticising Cameron and the coalition, in print and online. He wanted me, in one or two sentences, to sum up why I've got such a problem with Dave.

Writing, rather appropriately in the Sun today, on the subject of welfare reform and benefit fraud, the Prime Minister makes the case against himself in a single, revealing, dog-whistling sentence:

That's why benefit fraud is the first and the deepest cut we will make.

Benefit fraud?? Which costs the country £1.5bn a year (or less than 1 per cent of the £155bn Budget deficit)? Not tax evasion or avoidance by the rich, which costs around £25bn? Not the £1.6bn lost to the taxpayer in errors and maladministration of the benefits system?

Not the £5bn rail subsidy, which helps fund the multimillion-pound bonuses of fat-cat rail bosses? Not the £2.5bn being wasted by the Ministry of Defence every year? Not the £4bn prisons budget, which, as the Justice Secretary admits, doesn't cut crime? Not the £4bn spent annually on a bloody, pointless and catastrophically self-defeating war in Afghanistan?

Nope, cutting benefit fraud. That's Cameron's main mission. I think it speaks volumes about his priorities and his preferences. So much for the veneer of "progressive conservatism".

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

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.