Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Switch off the editor’s digest free of charge
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
“Connection to immigration” in response to a counter -reaction of the voters is a British political tradition as the universal voting right. In fact, it is older than the modern pass – and indeed why the modern passport exists.
In response to the arrival of Jewish immigrants in the late 19th century, the British government established the first modern border. Similar political counter-reactions have been continued, including the reaction to the movement of people within the British Empire in the post-war period and the votes of the country 2016 for Brexit for the arrival of large figures from Central and Eastern Europe. Sir Keir Starrer’s announcement of a procedure After a time of increased immigration, he made him an old, old political heritage.
Great Britain is by no means extraordinary here, although some of the forms that it assumed (like the vote of leaving the European Union) surprised people. But the conviction that the signaling “things will change” should lead to a grateful nation that incorrectly re -elected the Labor Party.
Harold Wilson, the Labor Prime Minister, the Starrer the most resembles, was also part of the tradition of going back. He made a great and important improvements to that of his party policy By introducing the introduction of a color bar through the previous government and stripes of some Commonwealth immigrants of their automatic right to live in Great Britain. During his office, he also introduced variable fees for those who lived outside the British islands, and in 1967 the students stopped overseas.
One way to look at Labor’s modern strategy is to see it as part of this pragmatic push-me approach immigration. In this way, Labor strategists often like to present privately. It is a different way – the way rigid people like to talk about it – it is a practical necessity and the end of a “failed experiment” in liberal immigration policy.
Both explanations are incorrect. A big difference between Wilson and Strander is that the former led a country whose defense spending met the needs of an empire that did not have in which the average person was 33 years old, life expectancy was 70 and the state pension occurred in a few years earlier.
Starer leads a country whose defense expenditure has to increase where the average person is 40 years old and the life expectancy is around 80 years and most of us can expect to have at least one decade in which we receive the state pension. (Another problem is that for many of us this time in which we have to fight with sick health instead of enjoying a golden retirement, but that’s another problem.)
The reduction of freedom of movement – from humans, goods, capital or services – costs growth. It always has. Governments should not specify otherwise. The curbs for the free movement of people, be it in 1905, 1966 or 2019, inevitably cost the country.
But the United Kingdom of 2025 with its older population, its far larger state and its greater expectations of the standard and the quality of public services are even more sensitive to hits for growth than the United Kingdom of 1905. This is the world of the world. That is why the Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is.
The Starrer party has a political position, i.e. to express it easily and unusually. Labor claims that the conservatives have created a state that was too small – it did not build enough, delivered enough GPS, rented enough school teachers or sorted the excessively high living costs. It is also said that the resolutions of these problems can be carried out with fewer people than the conservatives managed.
In addition, the Labor government seems to believe that it can achieve all of this with a stricter labor market and by increasing the costs of hiring the entire board. It may be that the power of machine learning enables an enormous increase to squad this specific circle. On the other hand, it cannot. If the future of artificial intelligence is one in which we work next to AI and not be replaced by you, then you will never do it.
The difficult truth for work and European nations is that if they are as old as now, and their expectations of the size of the state are what they are now and the reduction in immigration has become a luxury material. It is one thing you just can’t afford if you are not ready to cut your cloth elsewhere. Great Britain had a foretaste of what that would bring with Rachel Reeves’ first budget, and hated it. The country shows no signs that medicine likes in other doses. Other aging democracies should take note. Great Britain’s approach is a sign of what is not to be done.
