Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. It's not the names that matter but the policies (Independent)

Only two reshuffles in 30 years have made a big difference to the fate of a government, writes Steve Richards.

2. Now Obama must build the case for government (Financial Times)

The president will have to avoid treading on the American dream, writes Gideon Rachman.

3. The cracks between the two Eds could swallow Labour’s hopes (Daily Telegraph)

Like Midas, the Labour leader appears to have it all – but he must show where the power lies, says Mary Riddell.

4. Free schools are a disaster (Guardian)

Michael Gove's flagship policy is a huge waste of money, socially divisive and won't raise educational standards, argues Francis Gilbert.

5. We deserve better than this yoni-centric claptrap (Independent)

Claims that the vagina is 'part of the female soul' are, frankly, insulting, says Laurie Penny.

6. These angry Tories can't see what 'no alternative' means (Guardian)

So blinded by dogma are they that the reality of the cuts to come has not yet hit home with Cameron's critics, writes Polly Toynbee. But it soon will.

7. The US economy may surprise us all (Financial Times)

Five factors suggest a coming surge in growth, writes Roger Altman.

8. Game changer? No, more an echo chamber (Times) (£)

David Cameron’s reshuffle today will be secateurs in the Rose Garden rather than a Night of the Long Knives, says Rachel Sylvester.

9. We must shift science out of the geek ghetto (Daily Telegraph)

Britain’s future rests on taking numbers seriously, says Liz Truss.

10. The Gentle Tory is alive and well – on television (Guardian)

Period dramas like Parade's End reveal a yearning for a conservative type that politics has left behind, says David Priestland.

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.