Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Britain badly needs an Abraham Lincoln who will think big and act big (Daily Telegraph)

MPs in both the Conservatives and Labour are yearning for a leader who will show courage and imagination, writes Mary Riddell.

2. A perilous journey to full recovery (Financial Times)

The key to success everywhere will be timing the exit from exceptional policies, writes Martin Wolf. 

3. Britain's narrow view of the EU is wrong (Times) (£)

Berlin shares David Cameron’s desire for reform in Brussels but not his vision for Europe, says German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle.

4. UK intervention in Mali treads a familiar – and doomed – path (Guardian)

Does Mali pose an "existential threat" to the UK? Hardly, says Simon Jenkins. Intervention will bring only more trouble.

5. Hillary Clinton leaves a hard job well done (Independent)

The Secretary of State leaves no signature achievement, but America is safer now than it was, says an Independent editorial. 

6. Murdoch links sympathy for Palestinians to anti-Semitism. The truth is more complex (Independent)

Wishing an end to Palestinian suffering is not synonymous with willing the annihilation of Israel, so why is this distinction so hard to make, asks Matthew Norman. 

7. We'll give parents the confidence they crave from early years education (Guardian)

Nurseries should give children the chance to learn, and women the choice to work if they want to, writes early years minister Elizabeth Truss.

8. Childcare plan: the kids are not all right (Guardian)

The biggest danger posed by the coalition's reforms is that they will create a new class divide at the earliest ages, says a Guardian editorial.

9. India casts around for more outrage (Financial Times)

Taking offence has become a newly powerful type of political power, writes James Crabtree.

10. A continent in chaos and why Hitler's evil is rising again (Daily Mail)

The fact that so many are willing to forget or ignore Hitler’s evil, means that Europe should approach its future with dread, says Simon Heffer.

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.