Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Why living costs and the deficit matter (Financial Times)

The party that persuades voters it can deal with both issues will win the election, says Gavin Kelly.

2. We need more homes, not easier mortgages (Times)

Cameron is right to focus on the family but Tories must not be afraid to unsettle the housing market, says Tim Montgomerie.

3. A conservatism is spreading that the Tories can't fathom (Guardian)

The party's neoliberal leaders are out of touch with exactly the kind of values that look likely to define our future, says John Harris.

4. I’m happy for my party to link with the Tories (Times)

UKIP has transformed the Conservatives, writes Nigel Farage. A deal with like-minded MPs makes sense.

5. We can’t afford welfare for disabled people, but apparently we can afford a marriage tax break (Independent)

This marriage tax allowance is nothing more than the state tutting at those who do not meet its expectations, writes Owen Jones.

6. The real reason the left's so livid about tax breaks for marriage (Daily Mail)

Labour's fury with the PM is mere displaced anger that the public's on his side, says Dominic Lawson.

7. A Syrian solution to civil conflict? The Free Syrian Army is holding talks with Assad's senior staff (Independent)

A secret approach to the President could reshape the whole war, writes Robert Fisk.

8. Leaders must speed up on climate change (Financial Times)

Businesses will watch governments to check they understand the IPCC findings, says Nicholas Stern.

9. Ed Miliband in power would be like a turbine on a windless day (Daily Telegraph)

It is astounding that people are falling for the opposition leader’s Wonga-like offer, writes Boris Johnson.

10. This Tory tax allowance is just a marriage of convenience (Guardian)

The party's real motive is to create a synthetic hierarchy of morals, and reward or punish people accordingly, writes Tanya Gold.

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.