Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. As Labour's iron man, Ed Balls could do the trick (Guardian)

The tough-as-titanium spending plan Ed Balls laid out could clinch an election, says Polly Toynbee. Can Ed Miliband provide matching vision?

2. George Osborne was the future once - now Michael Gove drives the Tories on (Daily Telegraph)

The Chancellor has been supplanted as the party’s most effective political playmaker, writes Benedict Brogan.

3. Talk of recovery in Greece is premature – and all about justifying austerity (Guardian)

Few think Athens could go a day outside the sovereign version of debtor's jail, writes Aditya Chakrabortty.

4. It’s not a register we need to keep politics honest. It’s a free press (Independent)

Despite what Nick Clegg thinks, a statutory regulator of lobbyists would not have prevented Patrick Mercer's own spectacular folly, writes John Rentoul.

5. Obama and Xi must halt a risky rivalry (Financial Times)

The real difficulty is over the Chinese desire to carve out a ‘sphere of influence’ in east Asia, writes Gideon Rachman.

6. Balls uses the ‘d-word’. But it’s just a first step (Times)

The shadow chancellor has acknowledged the deficit, writes Rachel Sylvester. Even so, economic credibility is still a long way off for Labour.

7. Hubris and nemesis, with a Turkish accent (Daily Telegraph)

Recep Erdogan’s style of politics lies at the heart of his problems at home and abroad, says Shashank Joshi. 

8. Politics catches up with age of austerity (Financial Times)

Britain may finally be able to have a strategic conversation about what government is for, says Janan Ganesh.

9. Case of Bradley Manning is not America's finest hour (Independent)

While Manning behaved recklessly, his treatment has been a disgrace, says an Independent editorial. 

10. Here's how Ukip would clean up Westminster's act on lobbying (Guardian)

The Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour have done little to end sleaze scandals, says Nigel Farage. They're all in hock to lobbyists.

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.