Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Does the Tory party actually want to win the next election? (Observer)

An 'alternative Queen's speech' by rightwingers illustrates David Cameron's enduring problems with his MPs, argues Andrew Rawnsley.

2. With Middle Eastern moderates like these, who needs extremists? (Sunday Times) (£)

In relation to the Iranian elections, he word of the week is “moderate”, says Dominic Lawson.

3. Recovery means... dumping Labour policies (Independent on Sunday)

Protected by the amulet of Saint Clem, Ed Miliband could go on to bury John Maynard Keynes, says John Rentoul.

4. George Osborne's spending review should focus on boosting growth and living standards (Sunday Mirror)

Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls explains how growth now would head off deeper cuts in 2015.

5. You may laugh at 'Jeffrey’, but he’s won the argument (Sunday Telegraph)

George Osborne has defined the rules of the game and the terms of the debate, writes Matthew d'Ancona.

6. Blame austerity, not old people, for the plight of Britain's young (Observer)

We have to refashion our economic model so that it works for everyone – particularly the young, says Will Hutton.

7. It’s dangerous to ignore the bridesmaids, PM (Sunday Times) (£)

No 10's female staff are treated more like admirers than advisers, writes Adam Boulton.

8. A little interference is a wonderful thing (Independent on Sunday)

The Government's sudden desire to make new rules and enforce old ones is overdue, writes D J Taylor.

9. Scotland's an enlightened country – unless you're female (Observer)

Scotland beats England in its compassionate ways. Just a shame about the misogyny, writes Kevin McKenna.

10. Back together: me, Fatboy Slim and the rest of the Upwardly Mobile Gang (Sunday Times) (£)

I became a grammar-school boy — and it will never leave me, says Andrew Sullivan.


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.