Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. The Tory party is in agony, but Labour is also leeching support (Daily Telegraph)

If he is to win back public trust, Labour leader Ed Miliband must tell voters what his spending plans entail, says Mary Riddell.

2. The climate sceptics have already won (Financial Times)

The real and present dangers are too uncomfortable to confront, writes Martin Wolf.

3. First, David Cameron should bring his own tax havens to book (Guardian)

Pressing the G8 to get tough on avoidance is hypocrisy while British dependencies like the Caymans still thrive, writes Simon Jenkins.

4. Why I’m ducking out of the Scottish debate (Times

Instinctively I’m sceptical of separation but politically there’s an advantage in Labour-voting Scotland leaving, writes Daniel Finkelstein.

5. George Osborne may not be dead in the water after all. What will Labour do then? (Guardian)

The IMF may today deliver good(ish) news on the economy, writes Gaby Hinsliff. Even a fake recovery would be bad news for the two Eds.

6. Stocks are booming, so beware the bust (Daily Telegraph)

The return of 'animal spirits’ usually points to better times, but it’s more complicated now, writes Jeremy Warner.

7. The ugly truth is a smug Tory elite has sneered at the party faithful for decades (Daily Mail)

Cameron is surrounded by people who sneer at the morals and values of his party's grassroots supporters, writes Simon Heffer.

8. Ed Miliband is staring at an open goal and I know just the pair of strikers to win it for him (Independent)

Darling and Mandy cut unlikely superheroes, writes Matthew Norman. But it's time for Miliband to bring them back. 

9. Cameron is no longer a winner (Financial Times)

Activists who picked the PM in 2005 to end a losing streak now regret their choice, writes Tim Bale.

10. Job security is a thing of the past - so millions need a better welfare system (Guardian)

Flexible labour markets have created a growing 'precariat', who should have the right to a basic standard of living, says Guy Standing.

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.