Morning Call: the pick of the papers

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

Cameron is right about Leveson. This is a Rubicon we must not cross (Guardian)

Simon Jenkins argues against statutory underpinning for press regulation.


Carney will gain by exploring the territory (Financial Times)


Adam Posen writes that the new Bank of England governor will have to prioritise open debate and public engagement.


Nick Boles wants to build on the greenbelt, but it's too soon for us to admire man-made landscapes (Independent)


Tom Sutcliffe explores the aesthetics of nature and human development.


With Ukip's surge, do we still have a progressive majority? (Guardian


John Harris argues that Ukip's strong by-election results indicate widespread distrust of politicians.


Mick and Sonny are still rockin' on, but will Madonna and Robbie last as long? (Independent


David Lister asks why age expectations are different for musicians in rock, jazz and blues.


So what happened to your defence of liberty, Harriet Harman? (Telegraph


Dan Hodges argues that Labour's support for Leveson is driven by a desire for political revenge.


Keep the kids in Beer St, not Vodka Plaza (Times) (£) 


Janice Turner argues that education, not raising alcohol prices, will cut down on binge-drinking.


The Chancellor George Osborne's alarming device is just the weapon for a country at war (Telegraph


Charles Moore says that Quantitive Easing has prevented the crisis from becoming even deeper.


Here's what to do in the Middle East: nothing (Times) (£) 


Matthew Parris says Britain should intervene less in overseas conflicts.


Morsi has squandered Egypt's goodwill (Financial Times


Roula Khalaf and Heba Saleh explain that Egypt's president is no longer a unifying figure.

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.