Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Cameron is trashing his own party, and it’s not a pretty sight (Daily Telegraph)

Gay marriage is an admirable cause, but if Conservative membership keeps falling at this rate, we will soon enter a new political era, says Peter Oborne.

2. Stafford Hospital, NHS managers, and why money rather than reform sometimes really is the answer (Independent)

A confused, simplistic and narrow debate about the true meaning of NHS reform has been exposed by the appalling neglect of patients in this exceptional case, writes Steve Richards.

3. The five questions Carney must answer (Financial Times)

The next BoE governor must live up to his rock star billing, says Chris Giles.

4. 'No more Mid Staffs' sounds so simple. It will be anything but (Guardian)

The parties were unified but we know that reform in the NHS, though massively necessary, has defeated many politicians, writes Martin Kettle.

5. It isn't those who oppose gay marriage who are the bigots - it is the liberals who demonise them (Daily Mail)

It marks a watershed in modern Britain when the leader of the party to which instinctively conservative people might be expected to look champions social revolution, says Stephen Glover.

6. Why the Tories need a meritocrat's manifesto (Guardian)

Fairness has traditionally been seen as a Labour preserve. But we can find a better way to reach the aspirational underdog, says Dominic Raab.

7. Confused of Westminster seeks a big idea (Times) (£)

Fractious Tories fight their leader and each other, while docile Labour is devoid of a plan, writes David Aaronovitch. The old politics is dying.

8. Turkey and the Kurds: progress on the horizon (Guardian)

If a Kurdish spring happens, the rewards for both sides are significant – not just the end of a conflict that has claimed 40,000 lives, says a Guardian editorial. 

9. Leveson and the Lords (Daily Telegraph)

The Defamation Bill is being used as a backdoor means of introducing state regulation of the press, says a Telegraph leader.

10. Rating agencies must beware of the law (Financial Times)

Free speech is no defence if standards are lowered to please issuers and gain revenues, writes John Gapper.

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.