In this week's New Statesman: The last Tsar

Vladimir Putin's lust for power | Is it ever okay to write about your divorce? | Michael Rosen on ch


This week's cover story profiles Vladimir Putin and his lust for power. Putin has stifled dissent throughout his political life, says Oliver Bullough. But as he prepares for another presidential term, Russia's disaffected middle class are no longer willing to stay silent. Also in the mix is Evgeny Lebedev, who writes this week's Diary, on Russia, the Guardian's struggles, and why he loves Blackpool. Elsewhere, Sophie Elmhirst interviews the Russian property magnate Sergei Polonsky.

The magazine also contains a profile of Rachel Cusk, whose new book Aftermath: on Marriage and Separation has caused a stir with its exposition of personal pain. In the Critics section, the book is reviewed by Jane Shilling. We pose the question: is it ever okay to write about your divorce? Meanwhile, Rob Brown discusses Scotland's Irish question. During the years of the Troubles, Catholics looked up to Labour as their protector. But all that has now changed, to the advantage of the SNP.

Elsewhere, Rafael Behr says that Ed Miliband needs to show us what he believes, Mehdi Hasan argues against western intervention, and Norman Lamont explains why the west's policy on Iran has failed. In the Critics lead, Michael Rosen asks why children's authors are rarely asked for their opinion on how to get children reading -- a serious oversight, since they know far more than politicians.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

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.