David Cameron speaks at the World Economic Forum on Jan. 24, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

New women's minister Nicky Morgan to "report directly" to Cameron

Minister's boss is still a man - just a different man.

One would have thought that even David Cameron could execute a minor cabinet reshuffle without controversy. But seemingly not. After naming Nicky Morgan as the new women's minister, but denying her the related equalities brief (owing to her opposition to equal marriage), the question arose of who was ultimately responsibility for the portfolio: Morgan or Sajid Javid (the new Culture Secretary and minister for equalities)?

At the post-PMQs briefing,  Cameron's spokesman said: "He is the cabinet minister. She attends cabinet", a response that suggested that, for the first time ever, the women's minister would be subordinate to a man. But at this afternoon's lobby briefing, the spokesman withdrew his earlier remarks ("a mistake") and announced that Morgan would instead "report directly to the Prime Minister on women's issues" (not Javid). He added: "She will have an office as Minister for Women supported by DCMS staff. But with regard to her responsibilities for women, she will report to the Prime Minister." In other words, Morgan's boss is still a man - just a different man.

Asked who had responsibility for issues relating to gay women, Cameron's spokesman simply replied that "ministers work as a team", a response that suggests that Morgan is still best described as "minister for straight women".  And, of course, there is now no full member of the cabinet responsible for women. Even by the standards of this government, quite a mess.

George Eaton is political editor of 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.