US press: pick of the papers

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

1. A Middle East twofer (New York Times)

One reason the Arab world has stagnated while Asia has thrived is that the Arabs had no good local models to follow — the way Taiwan followed Japan or Hong Kong, writes Thomas Friedman.
2. Paul Ryan's hunger games (Wall Street Journal)
Did you hear about the GOP's red-in-tooth-and-claw plan for Medicare? Grandma and Gramps are going to be drafted for the Hunger Games, says this editorial.
Kathleen Parker says it is entirely possible that women simply aren’t that into Mitt. He’s just not their kind of guy. Health care, taxes, budgets, debt ceilings, capacity utilization, Chinese currency: soimportant. But at the end of the day — does he have “it”? 
It breaks my heart that even as we root for the survival of the fictional Katniss, we do not know enough — or care enough — to raise our collective voice and demand that North Korea stop breeding, starving and enslaving labor-camp children, says Blaine Harden.
5. Men in black (New York Times)
Maureen Dowd says: Has Obama, this former constitutional law instructor, no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances? Nah. And why should he?
There are, of course, legitimate uses for all such gizmos, as there are for gun vaults, portable bunkers and military gear. But Big Brother’s display space at the expo is expanding, writes Dana Milbank.
Every attack that Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich launches against Romney from the right bolsters the former governor’s credibility as a moderate in the eyes of the general electorate, writes Michael Rosen.
There is real pain here, and despair, and it's in the present. And I couldn't help wonder if I was also looking at America's future, John Kass writes from Athens.
9. High court crisis? (New York Post)
Sure, other presidents have argued bitterly with the court — FDR tried, in effect, to destroy it. Obama no doubt wants his signature piece of legislation to survive, says this editorial.
Although Romney has not yet accumulated the necessary 1,144 delegates to the Republican National Convention in August in Tampa, Fla., the chances are evaporating — make that have evaporated — that he can be denied his party’s nomination, writes Stuart Rothenberg.
Mitt Romney speaking at an event 3 April. Credit: Getty Images
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.