Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Cameron does not deserve this B-team (Daily Telegraph)

The Tory leader David Cameron can do nothing to satisfy his selfish MPs, says Peter Oborne. The only winner is Ed Miliband.

2. Is plebgate a product of the push for police reform? (Guardian)

The Mitchell affair is a reminder that relations between this government and the force are as bad as any in living memory, writes Martin Kettle.

3. Damned and cast out prematurely. No wonder Mitchell is angry (Independent)

Sometimes in these storms spin doctors can make mistakes, says Steve Richards. Mitchell's apology, in staged public circumstances, seemed an implicit acceptance of guilt.

4. I am not a leftie bank-basher, but why has no one been jailed for their criminality? (Daily Mail)

Without the awareness of fault that a proper inquiry would bring, bankers will repeat their sins, says Stephen Glover.

5. Cameron is wrong to take on the Tory party (Financial Times)

The prime minister’s tactics appear disastrous, says Tessa Keswick.

6. A referendum on Europe? Bring it on, for all our sakes (Guardian)

Cameron, Clegg and Miliband all fear a public vote - but they should go for it nonetheless, says Timothy Garton Ash. Let the people decide.

7. Who Dares Wins (Times) (£)

Obama needs to insist on gun control, not just ask for it, says a Times editorial.

8. Confusion reigns when the police won’t talk (Daily Telegraph)

For the Metropolitan Police, press briefings are a thing of the past – and it’s the public that is losing out, says John Yates.

9. Europe must be sold on shale’s merits (Financial Times)

If the argument is not won, the region could miss out on a huge opportunity, writes Noe van Hulst.

10. The Church is being reborn in cafes and homes (Independent)

New congregations are being created for the benefit of people who’ve never been to Church, writes Andreas Whittam Smith.

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.