Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from the Sunday papers.

1. This railway fiasco reveals all that's wrong with the Tories (Observer)

If you hollow out the state, expensive disasters like the West Coast franchise will become routine, says Will Hutton.

2. Those awesome Tory tough guys are itching to take on anybody ( long as it's not a fair fight) (Mail on Sunday)

Instead of introducing welfare reform carefully and slowly, the Tories seem hellbent on using brute force, writes Viv Groskop.

3. The Man with the Plan can’t keep avoiding the Blond One (Sunday Telegraph)

There is a clear and present danger that Boris Johnson will steal the show in Birmingham, writes Matthew d'Ancona. The Cameroons must act.

4. Now, Dave, will you take Ed seriously? (Sunday Times) (£)

The prime minister needs to convince us there is more to his own plan for one nation than austerity, says Martin Ivens.

5. Boris Johnson reminds Tories of what David Cameron has lost (Observer)

Number 10 says it is relaxed about the mayor's speech at conference, writes Andrew Rawnsley. It is as relaxed as a cat on a hot tin roof.

6. Spot the clues in the battle of the veeps (Independent on Sunday)

Vice-presidential debates have a chequered history, but sometimes they can be a springboard to the top job, writes Rupert Cornwell.

7. The sheep have stampeded - and they'll sweep Ed straight into No10 (Mail on Sunday)

Miliband will be the next Prime Minister, and, in the end, our political media are power-worshippers, says Peter Hitchens.

8. Why does Jeremy Hunt want to turn the clock back on the abortion debate? (Observer)

The health secretary's intervention on abortion time limits is part of a concerted attack on women's rights, says Catherine Bennett.

9. Dave's best bet is a repeat of the 1983 show (Independent on Sunday)

It may seem harsh, but elections can be won even if a minority is suffering, writes John Rentoul.

10. Mitt Romney teaches the Tories a lesson in conviction (Sunday Telegraph)

Osborne needs some good headlines this week – and that means tax cuts, says Janet Daley.

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.