Show Hide image

Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Cameron is paying the price for grievous lapse of judgment (Daily Telegraph)

After Rupert Murdoch and Maria Miller errors, Downing Street needs shaking up if the Prime Minister’s credibility with voters is to be restored, says Peter Oborne. 

2. After Maria Miller, the good news is that MPs can change (Guardian)

The culture secretary's thoroughly modern departure will prompt reform, although mistrust in politics still presents a wider problem, writes Martin Kettle. 

3. The first of Thatcher’s children has arrived (Times)

Maria Miller’s resignation will soon be forgotten, writes Tim Montgomerie. But her replacement could make a lasting impression on politics.

4. Rising inequality is Asia’s main challenge (Financial Times)

Much of the benefit of economic growth goes to those who were already better off, writes David Pilling. 

5. Orwell would loathe this leftie gobbledegook (Times)

The vacuous advice recently offered to Ed Miliband is indicative of the lack of thinking at the heart of the left, says David Aaronovitch. 

6. Mess and muddle as the Scots’ vote looms (Daily Telegraph)

Westminster is making no plans for a Yes vote on Scottish independence, and the Civil Service’s neutrality is under fire, writes Sue Cameron. 

7. Venezuela shows that protest can be a defence of privilege (Guardian)

Street action is now regularly used with western backing to target elected governments in the interests of elites, writes Seumas Milne. 

8. Let's imagine the UK votes to leave the EU. What happens next? (Independent)

It’s a realistic prospect, and now brilliant young diplomat Iain Mansfield has come up with the answer, writes Andreas Whittam Smith. 

9. An Osborne ‘I told you so’ is justified (Financial Times)

The UK chancellor has suffered much abuse – he is only giving what he has received, says Chris Giles.

10. The working classes don't want to be 'hard-working families' (Guardian)

The rhetorical label 'hard-working families' has won Labour no voters and ignores the true nature of social change, says Selina Todd. 

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.