Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Clinton is proving that a feminist foreign policy is possible – and works (Guardian)

The US secretary of state has placed women's needs at the heart of US thinking about long-term security, says Madeleine Bunting.

2. Watch out, Dave. Red Ed's making a cynical grab for your Big Society (Daily Mail)

Miliband speaks the language of "small-c conservatism" but his promotion of "community organisers" is an attempt to subvert western values, argues Melanie Phillips.

3. A daft way to tackle America's debt (Financial Times)

The Republicans need to moderate their zeal to cut spending too much and too soon, says Clive Crook.

4. Getting beaten up in cyberspace does no one much harm (Daily Telegraph)

The internet has enabled journalists to be held accountable by their readers, writes Boris Johnson.

5. John Maynard Keynes: the master and the doctor (Guardian)

Vince Cable provides better intellectual cover for coalition economics than David Cameron, says a Guardian editorial.

6. Tunisia heralds a long battle for Arab reform (Financial Times)

A slow transformation of much of the rest of the Arab world is likely to follow, writes Rami Khouri.

7. Britain will suffer if it doesn't help the euro (Times) (£)

We're all in the European debt crisis together, like it or not, writes Bill Emmott. The Prime Minister doesn't seem to realise this.

8. The Tory embrace may well split the Lib Dems in two (Guardian)

Many social democrats can't stand what is happening to their party and will be tempted by Ed Miliband's repositioning of Labour, writes Jackie Ashley.

9. It's not only the old who are getting bullied off the screen (Independent)

The case of Miriam O'Reilly remind us that foolish and obtuse decisions are made every day by those in charge, says Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

10. Not even Silvio can get away with this (Independent)

Even for the oh-so-broad-minded Italians, Berlusconi's exploits are becoming a bit creepy, writes Peter Popham.

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.