Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. Lady Thatcher debate a battle over Britain's present and future (Guardian)

Make no mistake, the politicised contest about how to remember the former prime minister is not about the past, writes Jonathan Freedland.

2. The ghost of Margaret Thatcher will haunt David Cameron until he shows he can win an election (Independent)

The unusually large band of 148 new Tory MPs elected in 2010 are very much 'Thatcher’s children', writes Andrew Grice.

3. The selfish left, not Thatcher, divided us (Times) (£)

In the 20 years before her time in office, the nation endured far more conflict than in the 20 years after it, argues Daniel Finkelstein.

4. Margaret Thatcher: Respect for the dead is an outdated and foolish principle (Independent)

Let us say what we think, and be frank about it: death does not confer privilege, writes A.C. Grayling.

5. The radical Mrs Thatcher is still inspiring today's Conservatives (Daily Telegraph)

Margaret Thatcher proved you can change minds by the force of ideas, says Conservative MP Liz Truss.

6. In this nuclear standoff, it's the US that's the rogue state (Guardian)

The use of threats and isolation against Iran and North Korea is a bizarre, perilous way to conduct foreign relations, says Jonathan Steele.

7. Japan’s unfinished policy revolution (Financial Times)

Tokyo’s economic system is a machine for generating high private savings, writes Martin Wolf. 

8. Margaret Thatcher was no feminist (Guardian)

Far from 'smashing the glass ceiling', Thatcher made it through and pulled the ladder up after her, says Hadley Freeman.

9. Thatcher's economic reforms influenced the world, but the next big changes won't come from Britain (Independent)

Once upon a time we exported Thatcherism; in the near future, we will find ourselves reimporting an Indian and Chinese version of it, writes Hamish McRae.

10. Hollande must heed lessons of Louis XVI (Financial Times)

France’s president may come to be the victim of a revolt against elites, writes Dominique Moïsi.

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