Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. David Cameron may live to regret his backing for George Osborne (Guardian)

By declaring his support until 2015, the PM has narrowed his options and risks energising his enemies within the party, writes Gaby Hinsliff. 

2. Obama must face the rise of the robots (Financial Times)

Technology will leave a large chunk of the US labour force in the lurch, says Edward Luce.

3. Cameron’s safe, but he urgently needs a plan (Times) (£)

Being a good front man is fine, but it’s not enough if the behind-the-scenes thinking simply isn’t going on, says Tim Montgomerie.

4. As the Tories revolt, Ed is given an easy ride (Daily Telegraph)

Labour’s poll lead belies a lack of convincing policies on the economy, Europe and much else, says Iain Martin.

5. Mid Staffs was a betrayal of the NHS (Guardian)

Transparency and accountability are the key to avoiding another care crisis, says Mike Farrar.

6. The bedroom tax is just the latest assault on our poorest citizens (Independent)

The government's approach requires it to demonise its victims as state dependent leeches, says Owen Jones.

7. Cameron’s critics should extol his European vision (Financial Times)

London needs to develop partners, issue by issue, writes Robert Zoellick.

8. Blair may be the one to save Dave (Sun)

The man David Cameron and George Osborne hail as "the master" has signalled that Labour is an empty vessel, writes Trevor Kavanagh. 

9. From the Papal monasteries to Timbuktu, absolutism lives on (Independent)

For the Salafists, a Muslim shrine is a rival to God as surely as Henry VIII saw the monasteries as a Papal rival, writes Robert Fisk. 

10. Mr Cameron needs a more civil partnership (Daily Telegraph)

The row over same-sex marriage makes the Conservatives look like an ill-disciplined rabble rather than a serious party of government, says a Telegraph editorial.

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.