Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Here’s how the Conservatives can win back the working class (Daily Telegraph)

Labour is losing in areas such as the North East, where voters long for an economic revival, writes David Skelton.

2. Open season on black boys after a verdict like this (Guardian)

Calls for calm made after killer of Trayvon Martin was acquitted of murder are empty words for black families, says Gary Younge.

3. For Tories, privatisation is still a matter of dogmatic faith (Independent)

The breadth of opposition to Royal Mail privatisation is hardly surprising, writes Owen Jones. Britons have endured a three-decade-long experiment of selling off our utilities and public services.

4. You’ve been Sammed: No 10’s real moderniser (Times)

From arming the Syrian rebels to gay marriage, the Prime Minister’s policies tend to reflect his wife’s core values, writes Tim Montgomerie.

5. Simpson and Bowles are wrong on US debt (Financial Times)

The deficit hawks were mistaken before 2008 and they remain so, writes Edward Luce.

6. By taking sides within sides, Rifkind risks a repeat of Balkans mistakes in Syria (Independent)

It was the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s and the Bosnian War in the 1990s, writes Robert Fisk. Today's superpowers are fighting in Syria, but lets be in no doubt as to their motivations.

7. Tunisia is the model for a new Egypt (Financial Times)

Egyptians should realise that everyone lost when they ceased co-operating, says Marwan Muasher.

8. The writers Alex Salmond is courting now will hold him to account (Guardian)

The arts world may be galvanised by the yes campaign but are likely to ask serious questions of the SNP after independence, writes Alan Bissett.

9. A Register of Lobbyists (Times)

The process by which policy decisions are made should be transparent, says a Times editorial.

10. Letting developers vandalise the countryside won't solve housing crisis (Guardian)

Cynically relaxing planning controls puts rural Britain at risk while doing nothing to ease the housing shortage in our cities, writes Nick Herbert.

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.