Morning Call: pick of the papers

The must-read comment and analysis from today's papers.

  1. Downgrade is Osborne's punishment for deficit-first policy (Guardian)
    "Without a tangible increase in the nation's annual income until after the next election, George Osborne's hopes of finding the money to cut the UK's £1tn of debt are in shreds", reads the Guardian's leader.
  2. The AAA downgrade may benefit Britain (Telegraph)
    If what we get is realism, then the price will be worth paying, says Thomas Pascoe.
  3. The UK is very European – in its mistakes (Financial Times)
    The delay in addressing economic problems is deepening them, writes Adam Posen.
  4. With this tax dodger list the Revenue shames only itself (Guardian)
    By singling out barbers and pipe fitters, HMRC shows it takes care of the little people, while Amazon looks after itself, writes Marina Hyde
  5. The politicians are losing in Eastleigh (Telegraph)
    Some in the press are calling this the most important by-election for 30 years. But important to whom?
  6. Weaker pound is welcome but no panacea (Financial Times)
    The challenge is to connect monetary and fiscal policy to promote demand while enhancing supply, writes Martin Wolf.
  7. Long live shopping. But the shop is dead (Times)
    Retail parks are already the past, doomed like high streets and markets. The internet changes how we buy and think, writes Matthew Parris
  8. Is downgrade bad news for Osborne? (Financial Times)
    "After the US was downgraded in 2011, US bond yields tumbled", says the Short View column.
  9. Sorry to harp on, but the horrors of Mid Staffs just won’t go away (Telegraph)
    The Prime Minister acknowledges the shame of the Amritsar massacre in India, but many more died on the NHS’s filthy wards, writes Charles Moore.
  10. Downgrade: good news for UK (Financial Times)
    All of the country’s problems are well documented, says Lex.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

David Cameron addresses pupils at an assembly during a visit to Corby Technical School on September 2, 2015. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Can Cameron maintain his refugee stance as he comes under attack from all sides?

Tory MPs, the Sun, Labour and a growing section of the public are calling on the PM to end his refusal to take "more and more". 

The disparity between the traumatic images of drowned Syrian children and David Cameron's compassionless response ("I don't think there is an answer that can be achieved simply by taking more and more refugees") has triggered a political backlash. A petition calling for greater action (the UK has to date accepted around 5,000) has passed the 100,000 threshold required for the government to consider a debate after tens of thousands signed this morning. Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson has tweeted: "This is not an immigration issue, it's a humanitarian one, and the human response must be to help. If we don't, what does that make us?" Tory MPs such as Nicola Blackwood, David Burrowes, Jeremy Lefroy and Johnny Mercer have similarly appealed to Cameron to reverse his stance.

Today's Sun declares that the UK has "a proud record of taking in desperate people and we should not flinch from it now if it is beyond doubt that they have fled for their lives." Meanwhile, the Washington Post has published a derisive piece headlined "Britain takes in so few refugees from Syria they would fit on a subway train". Labour has called on Cameron to convene a meeting of Cobra to discuss the crisis and to request an emergency EU summit. Yvette Cooper, who led the way with a speech on Monday outlining how the UK could accept 10,000 refugees, is organising a meeting of councils, charities and faith groups to discuss Britain's response. Public opinion, which can turn remarkably quickly in response to harrowing images, is likely to have grown more sympathetic to the Syrians' plight. Indeed, a survey in March found that those who supported accepting refugees fleeing persecution outnumbered opponents by 47-24 per cent. 

The political question is whether this cumulative pressure will force Cameron to change his stance. He may not agree to match Cooper's demand of 10,000 (though Germany is poised to accept 800,000) but an increasing number at Westminster believe that he cannot remain impassive. Surely Cameron, who will not stand for election again, will not want this stain on his premiership? The UK's obstinacy is further antagonising Angela Merkel on whom his hopes of a successful EU renegotiation rest. If nothing else, Cameron should remember one of the laws of politics: the earlier a climbdown, the less painful it is. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.