Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Ed Miliband is standing firm on Syria, but is he caught in a trap? (Daily Telegraph)

Labour is haunted by Iraq, but doing nothing as catastrophe unfolds brings its own risks, writes Mary Riddell.

2. The toxic legacy of the Greek crisis (Financial Times)

That Greece was the first to fall into trouble gave weight to the view that the crisis was fiscal, writes Martin Wolf.

3. Big ideas can be bad ideas - even in the age of the thinktank (Guardian)

Forget the US model. British academics should aspire to offer more than just intellectual fig leaves for policymakers, writes Mark Mazower.

4. What’s to be gained from arming the rebels? (Times)

Whether or not Britain takes sides in Syria, these are the issues facing military analysts, writes Roger Boyes.

5. Britain's response to the NSA story? Back off and shut up (Guardian)

Snowden's revelations are causing outrage in the US, writes Simon Jenkins. In the UK, Hague deploys a police-state defence and the media is silenced.

6. We must never forget our debt to America (Times)

Ahead of Barack Obama’s speech in Berlin we should remember that the US made the choice to protect Europe, says Daniel Finkelstein.

7. Russia has mixed motives in Syria (Financial Times)

To ordinary people, a defeat of the rebels is seen as a victory over the west, writes Andrei Nekrasov.

8. Did Stuart Hall's victims relive their agony just for this? (Daily Mail)

Hall's lenient sentence shows judges learnt nothing from Savile, says Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

9. Co-op structures don’t solve all management issues (Independent)

We must make the shareholder-owned model work as well as possible, says Hamish McRae.

10. It's now time we reaped the rewards of GM crops (Daily Telegraph)

A disastrous harvest ahead and poor productivity mean farmers need all the help they can get, says Philip Johnston.

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.