Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Welcome, Mr Carney – Britain needs you (Financial Times)

The next BoE governor must chart a voyage back to something close to normality, writes Martin Wolf.

2. On Leveson, David Cameron's dilemma is that the press can still ruin careers (Guardian)

Coverage of the Leveson inquiry proves why the press must be reformed – but it also shows the risk involved in doing so, says Peter Wilby.

3. Don’t force the press into politicians’ arms (Times) (£)

Newspapers have forfeited the right to self-regulation, but state regulation is dangerous, argues Times editor James Harding.

4. Tories should take on Nigel Farage, not woo him (Independent)

Cameron knows that an electoral pact would be mad, impracticable, and philosophically incoherent, writes Steve Richards.

5. Obama should end his reticence on rights (Financial Times)

The US president would surely like his foreign policy legacy to be about more than success in a war on terror, says Gideon Rachman.

6. Europe's €50bn bung that enriches landowners and kills wildlife (Guardian)

The EU's farm subsidies are a modern equivalent of feudal aid, writes George Monbiot. As Europe suffers under austerity, it's right to call for reform.

7. It has taken the left years, but finally the press is at its mercy (Daily Telegraph)

Whatever low opinion the country has of its press, it has even less confidence in politicians as invigilators, says Benedict Brogan.

8. Ukip are not closet racists – but we’ve had enough (Daily Telegraph)

The adoption case in Rotherham has become a wake-up call from Ukip to Westminster, writes Nigel Farage.

9. It would make a mockery of justice if foreign judges start to overrule our own institutions (Daily Mail)

It’s time to face up to the issue and pull out of the European Court’s jurisdiction altogether, argues former justice minister Nick Herbert.

10. Binyamin Netanyahu's fig leaf could be back (Guardian)

Retirement might not stop Ehud Barak playing a key role in any Israeli plans to attack Iran, writes Aluf Benn.

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.