Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. London must be free to tax and spend (Financial Times)

Other capital cities have a wider tax base and more freedom to set rates, writes Tony Travers.

2. Big business mustn’t crush little guys in cars (Times)

If oil executives have fixed prices there should be a windfall tax and jail sentences, says Robert Halfon.

3. European Union: if the 'outs' get their way, we'll end up like Ukraine (Guardian)

There will come a point when Britain's relationship with the EU will change: to rush to the exit now would be a leap in the dark, says Vince Cable. 

4. France should face up to its fears (Financial Times)

The realisation of what is needed explains the people’s profound anxiety, writes Maurice Lévy.

5. Old Tory scepticism has won, yet Europe still ravages the party (Independent)

Eurosceptic anxiety under Blair was partly justified, says Steve Richards. They were right to be on their guard.

6. Have MPs learnt a thing since 2009? Their greed suggests not (Daily Telegraph)

The expenses scandal hasn't gone away, with politicians of all shades still milking the system, writes Peter Oborne.

7. Work on into your 70s. It will be good for you (Times)

Putting off retirement is good for the economy, writes Mark Littlewood. And people will be happier, healthier and wealthier too.

8. We have to decide to listen to sexually abused children (Guardian)

The cost of ignoring the girls involved in the Oxford case is too high, writes Zoe Williams. Why weren't they given this basic human respect

9. Who’s the odd one out in Europe? Not us (Independent)

France has left Germany's side and the public mood is heading south, writes Andreas Whittam Smith.

10. Mauling for Maude over his plans for change (Daily Telegraph)

Bernard Jenkin's select committee are putting the boot in over civil service reform, says Sue Cameron.

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.