Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The early years educational underclass is a handy moralisers' myth (Guardian)

Iain Duncan Smith's thinktank finds dubious ways to lay the blame for poverty on the parents and children that suffer it, says Zoe Williams.

2. Ed Miliband is no leader. He is a vulture (Times)

The Syria vote crystallised his failings, says David Aaronovitch. He waits for mistakes, then like a scavenger exploits them.

3. Ed Miliband was good on Syria. But he'll soon be given a Kinnock-style kicking (Guardian)

The Tories are bruised, writes Martin Kettle. So prepare for the most sustained character assassination in British politics since the 90s.

4. At last, the blue-chip hackers are about to be exposed. But I still fear a whitewash (Daily Mail)

If the matter is soon buried by the authorities, we can only conclude that there is one law for large companies — and another for the press, writes Stephen Glover.

5. Though Labour has rolled back on interventionism, the doctrine still survives (Independent)

US and British foreign policy has undergone an adjustment, not a transformation, writes John Rentoul. 

6. Morsi was running a coup, not a democracy (Times)

Egypt’s deposed leader was the frontman for a totalitarian sect that ignored demands for social justice, says Michael Burleigh. 

7. The questions that have to be answered about our bloated BBC (Daily Telegraph)

Lavish pay-offs and a City bonus culture have tainted a corporation that belongs to us all, writes Peter Oborne. 

8. UK economy calls for cautious optimism (Financial Times)

Several years of very easy monetary policy might at last be having an effect, writes Gavyn Davies.

9. Labour is broke and has no back-up plan (Daily Telegraph)

With ties to the unions and their funds severed, Miliband needs to find a new source of income, says Dan Hodges.

10. How social media delivered the Syria defeat (Daily Telegraph)

Politicians will have to work harder to justify their policies now that voters can tweet MPs, says Sue Cameron. 

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