Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Gloomsters buried the euro too soon (Financial Times)

The end point looks likely to be tighter economic union that falls short of political federalism, writes Philip Stephens.

2. Accountancy's Big Four are laughing all the way to the tax office (Guardian)

Accountancy giants are paid huge sums by the state while helping firms strip it of desperately needed tax revenue, says Polly Toynbee.

3. For Cameron aid is not a badge. It’s a mission (Times) (£)

When the PM is compared to Harold Macmillan it’s usually derogatory, writes Philip Collins. But Africa shows them both at their best.

4. The EU has changed Britain – and mostly for the better (Independent)

Besides the money for infrastructure projects, EU membership has given Brits the chance to see how Europeans do things, and what we could do better, says Mary Dejevsky.

5. Time to protect the UK defence budget (Financial Times)

If necessary, aid spending must be used to shore up the MoD, argues an FT leader.

6. Cameron goes where Blair went before – but at what cost? (Independent)

The Prime Minister's decision to send troops to Mali is the product of an ill-defined nightmare of religious terrorism and "gesture" politics, writes Adrian Hamilton.

7. Our Armed Forces can’t survive on a diet of fudge, Mr Cameron (Daily Telegraph)

If the Prime Minister truly wants to confront the threat from Islamists in Africa, he must find the money to increase the defence budget, says Fraser Nelson.

8. Why can't we British make patriotic films like Spielberg's blockbuster? (Daily Mail)

The director's Lincoln is an unembarrassed hymn to the United States, writes Max Hastings.

9. Try to see economic opportunity in our current difficulties (Daily Telegraph)

Times are hard, but blood-curdling warnings about our financial predicament are wrong, argues Jeremy Warner.

10. We can count hard cash, but what is the value of beauty? (Guardian)

In planning, defenders of nature are 'nimbies', opponents 'vandals', writes Simon Jenkins. To end the shouting match we need a new language.

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.