US Press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. America the Overcommitted (New York Times)

To succeed in foreign policy, says Jeremy Suri, America must set three clear priorities and pull back everywhere else.

2. The Wire: Why it still matters (Boston Globe)

The issues and concerns raised on the show have grown ever more timely as we descend into a new decade, writes Carlo Rotella.

3. Rabbit-Hole Economics (New York Times)

Tuesday's Republican debate opened the door on a fantasy world where nothing looks or behaves the way it does in real life, writes Paul Krugman.

4. Dollar coin? It's time (Los Angeles Times)

A coin would last longer than a bill, saving the government money, argues this editorial. It continues: But why stop there? Let's retire the penny and the nickel as well.

5. Prison isn't best option for nonviolent youths (Chicago Sun Times)

Research consistently shows that locking up nonviolent juvenile offenders fails to reform them, costs too much and makes us no safer. This editorial says it's time to get smarter.

6. New battle cry: We're 53 percent (St. Petersburg Times)

According to Annie Lowrey, this new campaign, a conservative answer to Occupy Wall Street, has some verve.

7. Ending hypocrisy of terrorist designation (Washington Times)

Gen. Hugh Shelton argues the U.S. government's practice of listing "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs) has become an increasingly dangerous and hollow political exercise, rather than a sober assessment of the real threats to America.

8. Health care aside, death panels alive and well (San Francisco Chronicle)

The notion of a White House bothering to request the statutory authority to execute troublesome Americans is just so ... 2009, writes David Sirota.

9. Raising up Hermain Cain (Washington Post)

Enjoy the GOP flavor of the week, while he lasts, says Eugene Robinson.

10. Happy birthday, Mr. Despot (New York Daily News)

This editorial concedes that celebrities occasionally use their star power to help good causes, such as disaster relief. But it continues: or they can help a murderous dictator celebrate his birthday -- for the right amount of cash.

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.