Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. A short history of austerity: it almost never works (Guardian)

You have to be one of Vince Cable's 'austerity jihadists' to believe you can cut your way out of a slump, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

2. Labour and the Tories both think they'll lose 2015 and they can't both be right (Independent)

The mood in each camp is downbeat and introspective, but “Sorry we blew it last time" isn't the kind of slogan that wins elections, writes Steve Richards. 

3. Punish them, yes. But jail doesn’t fit this crime (Times) (£)

Huhne and Pryce broke the law, writes Rachel Sylvester. But locking them up in our expensive, overcrowded prisons serves no purpose.

4. Prison is the right place for Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce (Daily Telegraph)

If they’d got off lightly for swapping penalty points for speeding, how many others would be encouraged to test the legal system, asks Philip Johnston.

5. Prepare for endgame in North Korea (Financial Times)

The US and China should pool ideas on the nuclear threat, says Gideon Rachman.

6. If Cameron wants his troops to rally, he must act like a general (Daily Telegraph)

MPs would fight to the death for victory, but they need the PM in the trenches with them, says Benedict Brogan.

7. A mansion tax can stop this mountain of wealth crushing us (Guardian)

Labour barely breathed on the super-rich when in power, says Polly Toynbee. In backing a mansion tax, they are at last offering an alternative.

8. Time for the media to find a compromise on Leveson recommendations (Independent)

The sluggish progress that has followed the inquiry risks the worst possible outcome, says an Independent editorial.

9. Immigration exposes political weakness (Financial Times)

Conservatives are caught between the right and left, writes Stanley Greenberg.

10. I'm leaving the Liberal Democrats too (Guardian)

The justice and security bill will have a corrosive impact on individual rights, writes Philippe Sands. The party's support for it is a coalition compromise too far.

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.