Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Labour can turn NHS scandal into success (Daily Telegraph)

Ed Miliband’s response to the Francis report on the Mid Staffordshire scandal could be the first step towards a Labour victory in 2015, says Mary Riddell.

2. Same-sex marriage vote: on the wrong side of history (Guardian)

The passing of the bill in the Commons was the latest climax in a disintegrating crisis of Conservative party credibility, says a Guardian editorial.

3. Cameron has sown needless discord (Daily Telegraph)

With the vote on gay marriage, the Prime Minister bounced his party into a reform for which there was no popular pressure, argues a Telegraph leader.

4. Japan can put people before profits (Financial Times)

The key to a better-balanced economy is to take surplus profits away from a corporate oligopoly, writes Martin Wolf.

5. Trident is no longer key to Britain’s security (Daily Telegraph)

Like-for-like renewal of our nuclear deterrent is neither strategically sound nor economically viable, write Des Browne and Ian Kearns.

6. It’s human to dread change and fear loss (Times) (£)

Good conservatives understand the value of tradition, but know when to welcome gay marriage or shopping malls, writes Daniel Finkelstein. 

7. Tory metrosexuals won the gay marriage vote – but at what cost? (Guardian)

 I agree that gay marriage is right, says Simon Jenkins. But the true test of tolerance lies in its treatment of intolerance – and we failed that test.

8. The Bank of England's new Governor is about to face a grilling, but what will the markets make of him? (Independent)

Mark Carney is eager to look for new policies to promote growth, writes Hamish McRae. Whether he can succeed is another issue.

9. Britain is a proud monarchy, and as such it must treat its former sovereigns with the respect owed to the office they held (Daily Mail)

The government  should grasp this moment to light the imagination of the nation, by holding a state funeral for Richard III at Westminster Abbey, says Andrew Roberts.

10. Ageing taxpayers owe the iPod generation (Financial Times)

Tax reform is crucial for Britain’s youth, writes Nick Bosanquet.

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.