Failure to pass the snooper's charter would be a "resignation issue"

Alan Johnson throws his support behind Therasa May, in a potentially unwelcome way.

Theresa May is pressing forward with attempts to use the events of last Wednesday in Woolwich to revive the ill-fated "snooper's charter", if her appearance on this morning's Andrew Marr show is anything to go by.

The policy – officially called the Communications Data Bill – was left dead in the water last month after Nick Clegg withdrew his support for it, but the changed atmosphere could provide May with a chance to bring it back to life. She told guest presenter Nick Robinson that "Intelligence agencies need access to communications data. It is essential to do their job."

The bill would force internet providers to keep much more information about phone calls and online communications, and for greater periods of time, than is currently the case.

Later, on the show, former Labour Home Secretary Alan Johnson supported May, although it was a double-edged sword. Johnson, who garnered the displeasure of many civil-liberties groups during his own time in cabinet, said that "We need to get this on the statute book before the next general election, and I think it’s absolutely crucial". But he added "Indeed, I think it’s a resignation issue for a Home Secretary if the Cabinet do not support her," a statement of "support" which May might wish had been left unsaid.

That's because even in the changed climate, the Cabinet is by no means united about the necessity of the Snooper's Charter as a response to the Woolwich attack. The Guardian's Alan Travis reports:

None of the measures in the "snooper's charter" bill would have prevented the savage murder of Drummer Lee Rigby, the communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has said.

The cabinet minister, who attended an emergency Cobra meeting on Thursday, defended the role of the security services, saying they had been "very successful at stopping a number of similar plots".

If May does stake her role on the bill, the fight could get nasty indeed.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex 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.