Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Benefits: taking money from the poor (Guardian)

A historic wedge is being driven between rich and poor, says a Guardian editorial.

2. Labour believes George Osborne will be snared by his own welfare benefits trap (Daily Telegraph)

The Chancellor’s caricature of welfare claimants as slobs on sofas bears no comparison with reality, writes Mary Riddell.

3. Cameron holds the aces. He should sit tight (Times) (£)

In the struggle between Europhiles, Eurosceptics and Europhobes, the middle ground is stronger than people think, says Daniel Finkelstein.

4. Don't mock Nick Clegg – he may stay in power for a generation (Guardian)

Since 2010 the deputy PM has been dismissed as politically crippled, writes Simon Jenkins. Yet his cunning could leave him kingmaker again.

5. Signs of trouble to come for China's new leader (Independent)

Protests over press freedom will test Xi Jinping's reformist image, says an Independent editorial.

6. There is a problem with welfare, but it's not 'shirkers' (Guardian)

This economic model isn't delivering jobs or decent wages, says Seumas Milne. The real scroungers are greedy landlords and employers.

7. A trade deal for Europe and US (Financial Times)

Timing for transatlantic talks is as good as it will ever get, says an FT leader.

8. Does a rise in borrowing mean a return to normality? (Independent)

There are several potential benefits to higher interest rates, says Hamish McRae.

9. Withdrawing child benefit is like sticking two fingers up to stay-at-home mothers (Daily Telegraph)

The coalition is signalling it believes there is nothing to gain from women bringing up their own children, writes Judith Woods.

10. American industry is on the move (Financial Times)

Manufacturers using ‘big data’ are setting the scene for a revival, says Sebastian Mallaby.

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.