Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The phone-hacking trial will be dream territory for the PM’s rivals (Daily Telegraph)

Under siege, Cameron will find it hard to resist the proposed state controls on the media, says Peter Oborne. 

2. The relentless school disaster movie is win-win for Michael Gove (Guardian)

The deficiency narrative cunningly attached to state education is the Tories at their brightest, says Zoe Williams. But do parents really buy it?

3. Newspapers are ignoring the reality. Our press will still be free (Independent)

The reaction of some newspaper executives conveys a lofty sense of power, writes Steve Richards. 

4. More than jihadism or Iran, China's role in Africa is Obama's obsession (Guardian)

Where America brings drones, the Chinese build roads. Al-Shabaab and co march in lockstep with this new imperialism, says John Pilger.

5. Beware: a dangerous new generation of leakers (Times)

The threat to security services from tech-savvy young anti-government ‘libertarians’ looks to be serious, says David Aaronovitch. 

6. Malala rises above east-west tensions (Financial Times)

It is a cop-out to conflate her case with legitimate Pakistani grievances against the west, writes David Pilling. 

7. The paper that helps Britain's enemies (Daily Mail)

The Guardian, with lethal irresponsibility, has crossed a line by printing tens of thousands of words describing the secret techniques used to monitor terrorists, says a Daily Mail editorial. 

8. Forget fiscal policy – supply matters (Financial Times)

When we understand the issue better, it will determine how much more austerity is needed in the UK, says Chris Giles.

9. It's not sexy, but frailty in old age is a feminist issue too (Guardian)

We talk about Botox, dating and Miley Cyrus, but we should be far angrier about the crisis over long-term care of the elderly, writes Gaby Hinsliff. 

10. Brown's mud-slingers eat humble pie (Daily Telegraph)

Ed Balls is turning to a once-reviled figure in an effort to win back public trust for his fiscal plans, says Sue Cameron. 

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.