Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. They’re out to get Cameron, but let’s not laugh too soon (Independent)

After plebgate and traingate the left longs to see Cameron unseated - but be careful what you wish for, writes Owen Jones.

2. It's been a week of low farce for the Tories. Yet little has really changed (Guardian)

Coalition troubles don't mean improving Labour fortunes: the economy and the eurozone still offer Cameron a chance, says Jackie Ashley.

3. Shadow of 9/11 towers over the US election (Financial Times)

The presidential campaign shows that the US has not yet left the Bush era behind, says Edward Luce.

4. Our universities need the Californian dream (Times) (£)

Britain must diversify: we should offer more than three-year degrees aimed at school leavers, writes Martin Rees.

5. This presidential election show is lame, but the outcome could be dramatic (Guardian)

The Democrats are clearly doing something right, yet almost any outcome lies within a narrowing margin of error, writes Gary Younge.

6. With the BBC on the run, ITV’s reputation is gaining ground (Independent)

The Savile story is essentially a tale of two broadcasters, and ITV will come out looking better for it, says Ian Burrell.

7. The austerity debate: time to think much bigger (Guardian)

Halting the government's programme to shrink the state will not resolve the other underlying problems, says a Guardian editorial.

8. Banking union will not end Europe’s crisis (Financial Times)

The project could unite the EU’s core but it will also separate it from the rest, writes Wolfgang Munchau.

9. David Cameron’s Euro pledge is a load of Brussels spouts (Sun)

Can we believe a word "Cast Iron Dave" says about a referendum after his previous broken promises, asks Nigel Farage.

10. Carlton Club snub adds to Mitchell woes (Daily Mail)

The club membership committee has decided unanimously to give honorary membership to Grant Shapps, the new Tory chairman, but not Mitchell, writes Andrew Pierce.

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.