Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. At the G8 a problem shared is a problem shelved (Times)

Adam Boulton looks ahead to the G8 without much hope for change.

2. A swing of the handbag reveals Mrs May's ambition (Telegraph)

David Cameron is relaxed about his colleagues wanting the top job. Just as well, says Matthew D'Ancona, as the Home Secretary has made it clear she believes she could lead the Tories.

3. The limits of Chinese parochialism (South China Morning Post)

Philip Bowring urges Beijing to see itself as more than an Asian power and to play a positive role in world affairs, while stressing that in light of Edward Snowden's presence, Hong Kong must get over its fixation with mainland China and the West.

4. Let's capitalise on the social enterprise boom (Independent)

Nick Hurd stresses importance of businesses and organisations that use profit to help to find better social solutions.

5. Bring on a British revolution - it's long overdue (Observer)

We've never managed more than a few riots – we need something more radical, says Kevin McKenna

6. Bad Idea, Mr President (IHT)

Syria is like Iraq, only worse, writes Ramzy Mardini, and arming the rebels will pour fuel on the fire.

7. Natural justice faces a savage loss of innocence (Observer)

Plans to reduce legal aid are an unwarranted assault on the very nature of our legal system, writes Nick Cohen.

8. Fight back youngsters, Gran is mugging you (Times)

After paying the pensions and health bills of older Britons, today’s generation can’t even afford their own homes.

9. Homer Simpson isn't a positive role model for kids? Eat my shorts... (Observer)

The report criticising TV comedies for their negative depictions of fathers is at once joyless and opportunistic, says David Mitchell.

10. Money calls the shots in state schools (Telegraph)

The Government refuses to increase selection on academic ability, writes Jenny McCartney, so we select instead on the basis of wealth, which is apparently more acceptable.

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.