Cameron hits back at Boris

"We will see what happens the next time he comes around with the begging bowl," says No. 10.

Boris Johnson's intervention over this week's cabinet reshuffle was his most striking yet. Not only did he condemn David Cameron's decision to remove Justine Greening as Transport Secretary (an extraordinary show of dissent), he added that it would be "simply mad" to build a third runway at Heathrow and vowed to "fight this all the way", even refusing to rule out fighting a by-election on the issue.

The Prime Minister, to put it mildly, might have hoped for a more helpful contribution from the Mayor as he sought to refresh his government. But Boris, still basking in post-Olympic glory, was determined to seize an opportunity to burnish his credentials as an alternative Conservative leader and reach out to those Tories alienated by Cameron.

It is unsurprising, then, that the Prime Minister felt it necessary to retaliate. "We will see what happens the next time he comes around with the begging bowl," one Downing Street official told today's FT. "He might need us one day." Cameron is reportedly considering withholding government support for projects such as "Crossrail II" (a new rail line from Chelsea to Hackney) and and a tunnel under the Thames at Silvertown.

If Boris and Cameron's power struggle leads to a mutually destructive war then it is Labour that will be the likely winner.

Boris Johnson has angered Downing Street with his criticism of a third runway at Heathrow. Photograph: Getty Images.

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.