Morning Call: pick of the papers

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

1. HS2 must terminate here. All change, please (Times)

I can no longer back high-speed rail, writes Alistair Darling. There are better ways to spend £50bn than on one line.

2. Ed, don’t listen to the advice – shouting louder won’t help you (Independent)

Miliband is not currently in a strong enough position to spell out his plans, says Steve Richards.

3. The financial crisis that refuses to go away (Daily Telegraph)

Emerging markets such as Brazil, India and Turkey have an outbreak of the jitters, and it’s hard to see a happy outcome, writes Jeremy Warner.

4. It's right to worry about security, but sometimes data trawls can be useful (Guardian)

For once the government has got something right – the NHS's electronic surveys could be more effective than randomised control trials, says Polly Toynbee.

5. India needs fixing – financially and morally (Independent)

The country's most famous economists, Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati, have different solutions, writes Peter Popham. But both ignore one key problem.

6. Will people really stay married for £150 a year? (Times)

If Conservatives are serious about protecting the family it would make more sense to tighten up divorce laws, says Philip Collins. 

7. Why Ed Miliband will be Britain's next prime minister (Guardian)

The Labour leader understands the nature of the UK's economic problems, write John Denham and Peter Hain. With the support of his colleagues, he will win in 2015.

8. Wilberforce’s heirs are ready to tackle the great evil of the age (Daily Telegraph)

Britain helped stamp out slavery once – now Theresa May is trying to do the same again, says Fraser Nelson.

9.  Syria: chemical weapons with impunity (Guardian)

The options for response are all bad, and it is doubtful whether airstrikes would establish deterrence, says a Guardian editorial.

10. Productivity is not everything (Financial Times)

There is nothing wrong with the US economy a measure of redistribution would not put right, writes Samuel Brittan.

Paul McMillan
Show Hide image

"We're an easy target": how a Tory manifesto pledge will tear families apart

Under current rules, bringing your foreign spouse to the UK is a luxury reserved for those earning £18,600 a year or more. The Tories want to make it even more exclusive. 

Carolyn Matthew met her partner, George, in South Africa sixteen years ago. She settled down with him, had kids, and lived like a normal family until last year, when they made the fateful decision to move to her hometown in Scotland. Matthew, 55, had elderly parents, and after 30 years away from home she wanted to be close to them. 

But Carolyn nor George - despite consulting a South African immigration lawyer – did not anticipate one huge stumbling block. That is the rule, introduced in 2012, that a British citizen must earn £18,600 a year before a foreign spouse may join them in the UK. 

“It is very dispiriting,” Carolyn said to me on the telephone from Bo’ness, a small town on the Firth of Forth, near Falkirk. “In two weeks, George has got to go back to South Africa.” Carolyn, who worked in corporate complaints, has struggled to find the same kind of work in her hometown. Jobs at the biggest local employer tend to be minimum wage. George, on the other hand, is an engineer – yet cannot work because of his holiday visa. 

To its critics, the minimum income threshold seems nonsensical. It splits up families – including children from parents – and discriminates against those likely to earn lower wages, such as women, ethnic minorities and anyone living outside London and the South East. The Migration Observatory has calculated that roughly half Britain’s working population would not meet the requirement. 

Yet the Conservative party not only wishes to maintain the policy, but hike the threshold. The manifesto stated:  “We will increase the earnings thresholds for people wishing to sponsor migrants for family visas.” 

Initially, the threshold was justified as a means of preventing foreign spouses from relying on the state. But tellingly, the Tory manifesto pledge comes under the heading of “Controlling Immigration”. 

Carolyn points out that because George cannot work while he is visiting her, she must support the two of them for months at a time without turning to state aid. “I don’t claim benefits,” she told me. “That is the last thing I want to do.” If both of them could work “life would be easy”. She believes that if the minimum income threshold is raised any further "it is going to make it a nightmare for everyone".

Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, co-sponsored a Westminster Hall debate on the subject earlier this year. While the Tory manifesto pledge is vague, McDonald warns that one option is the highest income threshold suggested in 2012 - £25,700, or more than the median yearly wage in the East Midlands. 

He described the current scheme as “just about the most draconian family visa rules in the world”, and believes a hike could affect more than half of British citizens. 

"Theresa May is forcing people to choose between their families and their homes in the UK - a choice which most people will think utterly unfair and unacceptable,” he said.  

For those a pay rise away from the current threshold, a hike will be demoralising. For Paul McMillan, 25, it is a sign that it’s time to emigrate.

McMillan, a graduate, met his American girlfriend Megan while travelling in 2012 (the couple are pictured above). He could find a job that will allow him to meet the minimum income threshold – if he were not now studying for a medical degree.  Like Matthew, McMillan’s partner has no intention of claiming benefits – in fact, he expects her visa would specifically ban her from doing so. 

Fed up with the hostile attitude to immigrants, and confident of his options elsewhere, McMillan is already planning a career abroad. “I am going to take off in four years,” he told me. 

As for why the Tories want to raise the minimum income threshold, he thinks it’s obvious – to force down immigration numbers. “None of this is about the amount of money we need to earn,” he said. “We’re an easy target for the government.”

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

0800 7318496