Morning Call: pick of the comment

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

1. If the Tories have a secret plan for power, they're keeping it quiet (Daily Telegraph)

Despite their boasts about being prepared for government, says Benedict Brogan, there are some anxious faces in the party's high command.

2. The fault line in Haiti runs straight to France (Times)

Ben Macintyre says that the destruction by the earthquake has been aggravated, not by a pact with the devil, but by the crippling legacy of imperialism. He looks back at Haiti's colonised history.

3. If Britain wants change that counts, there's an election it can vote in today (Guardian)

Timothy Garton Ash says that ideological differences between the parties are hugely exaggerated. What matters most is to transform the system. He writes about political reform and the Power 2010 campaign.

4. We have learnt the wrong lessons from Iraq (Financial Times)

Fresh from his appearance at the Chilcot inquiry, Alastair Campbell says that the government must improve strategic communication, as winning the war in Afghanistan requires maintaining public support.

5. This is a terrible reverse, but don't write off Obama (Independent)

There is discontent about the US economy, says Matthew Norman, but it is expected to improve dramatically by 2012, and Barack Obama foresaw this backlash before his election.

6. Lessons of a Mass revolt (Guardian)

Harold Evans agrees that although many voters oppose health reform, Obama's rejection in Massachusetts is mainly because millions are still out of work.

7. Bank of England independence is a cause of immense frustration for Gordon Brown (Daily Telegraph)

Mervyn King's latest criticism of the handling of the recession was a body blow to the PM, says Edmund Conway.

8. Family values have the Tories in a twist (Independent)

A mighty roar calls for our governments to praise the family. Steve Richards doesn't see how or why they should -- it is time for a debate about the limits and scope of government.

9. Review the sell-off of great British companies (Financial Times)

Will Hutton and Phillip Blond question the dominant logic of the past 30 years that mergers are good for the companies involved, for the economy and for consumers, and they call for British assets to be protected.

10. Memo to medics: it's about emotions as well as tumours (Guardian)

Zoe Williams looks at the latest disagreement among breast cancer experts, which shines a light into the grey areas of the NHS's screening programme.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

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.