Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The failure of this Islamist experiment poses a danger far beyond Egypt (Guardian)

Too many in the Muslim world will now conclude that democracy has no place for them - and be drawn to violence, writes Jonathan Freedland.

2. Scrap Tory associations, build a new party (Times)

Labour isn't the only one with local difficulties, writes Matthew Parris, grassroots Conservatives no longer represent modern Britain.

3. Unite in Falkirk - amateur and irresponsible (Guardian)

Eric Joyce, the outgoing Falkirk MP, is unimpressed by the selection process to find a successor.

4. Who will be there for you when you grow old (Times)

Janice Turner confronts the demographic and social catastrophe that will engulf the NHS.

5. Laptops and the case for high speed rail (Financial Times)

It's easier to grasp the costs than the benefits of HS2, writes Sarah O'Connor.

6. If we sell school places overseas, full blown privatisation won't be far off (Guardian)

Fiona Millar sees the ever deeper penetration of market forces as the logical extension of Michael Gove's agenda.

7. The flaws in selection are not Labour's alone (Daily Telegraph)

The Tory system kind of works. Primaries would be better, says Graeme Archer.

8. Tom Watson: my part in his downfall (Daily Telegraph)

Brisk yet thorough precis of an admired and feared Labour power-broker, by Dan Hodges.

9. Edward Snowden is a traitor just as surely as George Blake was (Daily Telegraph)

Charles Moore is unimpressed by justifications of the great CIA data-snoop leak.

10. A Conservative-Referendum party: The vindication of Sir James Goldsmith (Daily Mail)

Adrian Hilton is pleased as punch that the mood that destroyed John Major's government now sets the tone for the modern Conservative party.

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.