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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why Theresa May won't exclude students from the net migration target

The Prime Minister believes the public would view the move as "a fix". 

In a letter to David Cameron shortly after the last general election, Philip Hammond demanded that students be excluded from the net migration target. The then foreign secretary, who was backed by George Osborne and Sajid Javid, wrote: "From a foreign policy point of view, Britain's role as a world class destination for international students is a highly significant element of our soft power offer. It's an issue that's consistently raised with me by our foreign counterparts." Universities and businesses have long argued that it is economically harmful to limit student numbers. But David Cameron, supported by Theresa May, refused to relent. 

Appearing before the Treasury select committee yesterday, Hammond reignited the issue. "As we approach the challenge of getting net migration figures down, it is in my view essential that we look at how we do this in a way that protects the vital interests of our economy," he said. He added that "It's not whether politicians think one thing or another, it's what the public believe and I think it would be useful to explore that quesrtion." A YouGov poll published earlier this year found that 57 per cent of the public support excluding students from the "tens of thousands" target.

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, has also pressured May to do so. But the Prime Minister not only rejected the proposal - she demanded a stricter regime. Rudd later announced in her conference speech that there would be "tougher rules for students on lower quality courses". 

The economic case for reform is that students aid growth. The political case is that it would make the net migration target (which has been missed for six years) easier to meet (long-term immigration for study was 164,000 in the most recent period). But in May's view, excluding students from the target would be regarded by the public as a "fix" and would harm the drive to reduce numbers. If an exemption is made for one group, others will inevitably demand similar treatment. 

Universities complain that their lobbying power has been reduced by the decision to transfer ministerial responsibility from the business department to education. Bill Rammell, the former higher education minister and the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire, said in July: “We shouldn’t assume that Theresa May as prime minister will have the same restrictive view on overseas students that Theresa May the home secretary had”. Some Tory MPs hoped that the net migration target would be abolished altogether in a "Nixon goes to China" moment.

But rather than retreating, May has doubled-down. The Prime Minister regards permanently reduced migration as essential to her vision of a more ordered society. She believes the economic benefits of high immigration are both too negligible and too narrow. 

Her ambition is a forbidding one. Net migration has not been in the "tens of thousands" since 1997: when the EU had just 15 member states and the term "BRICS" had not even been coined. But as prime minister, May is determined to achieve what she could not as home secretary. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.