Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The west’s Mid East dominance is ending (Financial Times)

Those calling for deeper US involvement in the Syrian conflict are living in the past, writes Gideon Rachman.

2. Forget the excuses, here's how Britain can tax the rich (Guardian)

Cameron has made a bold push at the G8, writes Polly Toynbee. But it's time our politicians admit you can't have Swedish services on US rates.

3. The Thatcherite case for staying in the EU (Daily Telegraph)

Britain is richer, safer and more powerful for being a member of this global economic giant, says Ken Clarke. 

4. Is Ed up for a referendum? He may need to be (Independent)

Tory taunts won’t go away if Miliband resists matching Cameron’s pledge, says Donald Macintyre.

5. Intervening in Syria is a terrible idea – but we might just have to (Daily Telegraph)

The advantages that come from our alliance with the US also bring a heavy responsibility, writes Benedict Brogan.

6. No Minister, you can’t have recycled paper (Times)

The wasteful practices of the National Union of Mandarins is making cuts even deeper than they need to be, writes Rachel Sylvester.

7. Borisstan: the independent city state and docking station for global wealth formerly known as London (Guardian)

What would the British capital look like in the future if it broke away from the rest of the country, asks Aditya Chakrabortty.

8. Hassan Rowhani is a man we must do business with (Times)

Iran’s new President is brave and outspoken, writes Norman Lamont. The west should see him as a Gorbachev.

9. U-turn if you want to, Ed Miliband’s still a dud (Daily Telegraph)

There's just one thing missing from Labour's recent policy changes: a convincing leader, says Dan Hodges.

10. Britain is served well by its political class (Financial Times)

The crisis response by the UK’s unloved elites has been better than in many other rich democracies, writes Janan Ganesh.

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.