Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The young are doomed – and only the old can save them (FT)

Twentysomethings are being forced to delay adulthood, writes Chris Cook.

2. The Paul Flowers affair confirms it: 2015 will be a dirty election (Guardian)

From the Co-op to Mid Staffs, the Tory smear machine is operating at full throttle – and it won't relent till polling day, says Jonathan Freedland.

3. Slavery wasn’t abolished two centuries ago. It thrives in Britain today (Times) (£)

Human trafficking is the fastest-growing human international crime. We need a Modern Slavery Act, says Lucy Maule.

4. This obsession with Ethics is one of the great curses of our time (Telegraph)

Charles Moore: Paul Flowers and the Co-op Bank thought they were so good they couldn’t possibly be bad.

5. Iran can be made a force for Middle Eastern peace (FT)

Tehran wants to end the sanctions and to be seen as a legitimate Middle Eastern power, writes David Gardner.

6. 180 years after abolition, why is it the slave trade is booming? (Guardian)

We equate slavery with a bygone age. But as the case of three women found in a London house shows, it is far from dead, says Danny Smith.

7. China: now an example to the world on climate change? (Telegraph)

The climate change talks in Warsaw are going nowhere - but in the real world China and the US are both finally taking action to curb coal-fired power stations.

8. Why India Is Going to Mars (International New York Times)

The red planet isn’t just about horoscopes. We can live with superstition, and science, writes Manoj Kumar Patairiya.

9. 'Hutching up' – how London's housing crisis has young people at it like rabbits (Guardian)

Harriet Walker: Unaffordable rents mean couples are choosing to live together too soon, or doomed to stay together to avoid the misery of flatsharing.

10. A universal income is not such a silly idea (FT)

The concept of paying people to sit around has an upside, writes Tim Harford.

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.