Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. We don't need secret courts to protect our US relations (Guardian)

The claim that America's intelligence agencies won't share material if our justice remains open is bogus, says David Davis.

2. Britain suffers delusions of weakness not grandeur (Financial Times)

Nowhere is the UK’s imagined irrelevance less true than in the European Union, writes Janan Ganesh.

3. The fight for the centre ground between Clegg and Cameron makes the coalition fragile (Independent)

The Deputy Prime Minister has created tensions that may be his undoing, writes Steve Richards.

4. Today’s challenges go beyond Keynes (Financial Times)

A different kind of growth path is required, says Jeffrey Sachs.

5. In the US, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats (Guardian)

Barack Obama's tears for the children of Newtown are in stark contrast to his silence over the children murdered by his drones, says George Monbiot.

 

6. Let us concentrate on real human rights (Daily Telegraph)

The European Court has drifted too far from its principles – and we want to put that right, says Chris Grayling.

 

7. The Leveson report is a charter for control freaks in policing (Guardian)

Lord Justice Leveson's proposals would silence whistleblowers and make the police even more secretive and less accountable, argues Vikram Dodd.

8. Can our leaders find their inner Hercules? (Times) (£)

Obama already embodies a narrative, but Cameron, Miliband and Clegg must find one to explain their actions, writes Rachel Sylvester.

9. Shadow of fear over public's right to know (Daily Mail)

The message sent out by the arrest of a police officer is that the public ought to have been kept in ignorance of Andrew Mitchell’s tirade, says a Daily Mail editorial.

10. A not-so-new dawn in Japan (Independent)

The patriotism that Abe is keen to nurture can easily develop into a dangerous nationalism, says an Independent leader.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496