Author name: 胡思

nSince 2021, the UK has implemented a ‘points-based immigration system,’ claiming to attract global talent through a fair and transparent process to determine who can work in the UK. It sounds like Australia’s quantitative system, but in reality, it is not. It neither truly selects people based on scores nor allows the government to take control. The so-called ‘points’ are merely a repackaging of the old system.n

nUnder the current system, applicants must accumulate 70 points to be approved. However, these 70 points are almost predetermined: having an employer sponsorship, meeting the specified skill level, and passing an English test collectively account for 50 points. The remaining points can be obtained by meeting salary standards, having a job on the shortage occupation list, or possessing a PhD. In other words, once an applicant finds a willing sponsor, the other conditions are mostly met. This is not a competition of points but a ticket to entry.n

nA genuine points-based system should allocate points to everyone in a detailed manner. Scores should not be a patchwork of ‘choose one of three’ but rather a quantitative weighting of hundreds of detailed items. Factors such as which university, which department, English proficiency, work experience, age, and professional level should all be scored on a continuous scale. This way, everyone has an independent score, and the government can decide who to admit based on total scores. If there are only a few levels, each worth five points, and thousands of people have the same score, the so-called ‘points system’ loses its meaning.n

nA well-designed system should allow the government to truly control the scale of immigration. The government could set an annual quota and then admit applicants based on their scores, thus controlling numbers while maintaining quality. In contrast, the current UK system sets a fixed passing line, allowing anyone who meets the criteria to enter. As a result, visa numbers fluctuate with market changes, and the government loses control. It seems like ‘the government decides who can enter,’ but in reality, companies decide who can apply.n

nMore seriously, visas are tied to employers. Holders of Skilled Worker visas may lose their legal status if their employer goes bankrupt, restructures, or lays off workers due to economic cycles. No one can guarantee a job will last five years, let alone ten. This uncertainty makes foreign employees hesitant to resign, complain, or defend their rights. The system creates a dependency relationship, turning so-called ‘talent’ into replaceable labor.n

nThe UK has long been short of healthcare workers, engineers, and researchers, yet it still ties them to a single employer. To truly attract and retain talent, the UK should expand systems like the Global Talent visa. Not only award-winning scholars or Nobel laureates should be considered talent. Any doctor, nurse, engineer, or scientist with professional qualifications should be able to work freely. As long as they meet objective standards, they should be able to apply for permanent residency and citizenship without being beholden to their employer.n

nToday’s ‘points-based system’ neither selects the capable nor prevents abuse. It is neither a points system nor a real system. To rebuild credibility and efficiency, the UK must fundamentally reform—making scores a true selection standard and allowing the government to regain control, rather than letting employers manage the country’s borders.n

nThe UK prides itself as a model of democracy, yet its electoral system has not kept pace with the times. The ‘first-past-the-post’ (FPTP) system has been in place for over a century, originally designed to simplify procedures and prevent political fragmentation, focusing on ‘preventing malpractice’ rather than ‘selecting the worthy.’ However, times have changed, and society no longer speaks with just two voices. The limitations of this system are now glaringly apparent.n

nThe rules of FPTP are simple: each constituency elects one representative, and the candidate with the most votes wins, rendering all other votes ineffective. This might have been reasonable in an era of two-party competition, but it is out of touch with today’s multi-party landscape. In the 2024 general election, the Labour Party secured 33.7% of the vote yet captured 63% of the seats; the Reform Party received 14.3% and the Green Party 6.7%, together accounting for over 20% of the votes but winning only nine seats. When the majority of votes fail to translate into representation, the proportionality of democracy is compromised.n

nThis is not a coincidence but a long-standing structural bias. Since the post-war period, almost no government has secured a majority of the votes. Most administrations have been formed with just over 30% of the vote. The only exception was the 2010 Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, which collectively garnered 59.1% of the votes. Yet, even with a majority of votes, the seat distribution was skewed—the Liberal Democrats received nearly a quarter of the votes but only 10% of the seats. Such disparities weaken the credibility of the system.n

nProponents might argue that FPTP ensures stability and prevents political fragmentation. This argument holds some truth, but in a pluralistic society, stability cannot be maintained through suppression. If minorities are consistently excluded from the political process, public discontent will inevitably build. When voters feel that ‘it doesn’t matter who they vote for,’ turnout declines, and political engagement wanes. In the long run, this is more concerning than political instability.n

nIn fact, the UK already has experience with different electoral systems. Scotland and Wales use the Additional Member System, Northern Ireland employs the Single Transferable Vote, and the same applies at the local level. Wales is set to fully adopt proportional representation by 2026. These examples demonstrate that electoral reform is not an unattainable goal but a feasible path to follow.n

nProportional representation may not be perfect, but it aligns seats more closely with public opinion, giving each vote more value. It requires parties to negotiate and fosters a culture of shared governance. If local governments in England and the House of Commons gradually adopt it, UK democracy will become more complete and inclusive.n

nAn electoral system should not be merely a tradition; it should respond to current realities. While the old system once brought stability, today it limits representativeness. If the UK is to rebuild public trust in politics, it must bravely adjust its course to ensure every vote counts. After all, the true essence of democracy lies not in who wins, but in everyone being heard.n

nThe UK Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee has recently launched a public inquiry titled ‘Routes to Settlement,’ inviting the public to submit opinions on the immigration settlement system. This is not a typical consultation but a preliminary battle over policy that affects the fate of hundreds of thousands of people, billions in tax revenue, and the UK’s ability to continue attracting talent. The deadline for submissions is December 2, and each response will serve as a basis for parliamentary discussions.n

nUnder the current system, legal residents can apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain after five years. The government is considering extending this period to ten years and introducing a ‘contribution-based’ principle, requiring applicants to demonstrate their societal contributions through work, volunteer service, language skills, and more. On the surface, this seems reasonable, but a closer look reveals a host of issues.n

nFirstly, extending the period would diminish the UK’s attractiveness. Skilled applicants often have multiple options. Canada and Australia offer settlement in three to five years; if the UK extends it to ten, it effectively relinquishes the best and brightest. The most capable and mobile professionals will choose places with clearer rules and more certain prospects. Those who remain in the UK may be those unable to establish themselves elsewhere. A system that only attracts ‘those who can afford to come but can’t afford to leave’ will, in the long run, weaken overall productivity and the tax base. The UK needs contributors, not passive residents.n

nSecondly, policy changes will create uncertainty. Many residents in the UK have already planned their lives and finances according to existing rules. If the system changes suddenly, they will be forced to pay additional years of visa fees and the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS), while student families will continue to pay ‘overseas’ tuition fees. This is not just a financial issue but a matter of trust. If the government can change rules at will, both citizens and immigrants will find it hard to trust the system’s stability.n

nMoreover, using volunteer service or community involvement as a ‘contribution’ standard will entangle the system in bureaucratic complexity. Who will be responsible for verification? How will it be quantified? These tasks will require civil servants, leading to significant expenses and lengthy procedures. The value of volunteer service lies in its spontaneity and sincerity; turning it into a points game will only distort its original intent.n

nIf fiscal contribution is the measure, balancing fairness and simplicity becomes difficult. Contributions are not limited to income tax and National Insurance (NI) but also include VAT from daily consumption. In theory, these should be included, but it’s impossible to retrospectively calculate ten years of receipts, and asking individuals to keep ten years of bills is absurd. A system that is neither accurate nor fair will ultimately lose credibility.n

nThe UK’s appeal lies in its rule of law, stability, and predictability. If ‘settlement’ becomes an uncertain goal, the UK will lose its most valuable asset—trust. This inquiry is the only window before policy takes shape. Everyone has the right to submit their experiences and views, allowing Parliament to hear genuine voices.n

nIf you find it difficult to express yourself in writing, jot down key points and use AI to help refine them. The key is not to let others speak for you. When policy determines ‘who can stay,’ if you remain silent, you allow others to define your future.n

nThe problem in the UK is not aging, but pretending to be young. Today, for every 100 people of working age, there are about 30 retirees to support; by 2045, this will rise to about 35. This is known as the old-age dependency ratio, meaning each worker bears a heavier burden. With a shrinking tax base and rising expenditures, pensions and the National Health Service (NHS) rely on the current pool of taxpayers. When taxpayers decrease and beneficiaries increase, there are only three outcomes: cut pensions, weaken healthcare, or raise taxes. This is not an opinion, but arithmetic.n

nAccording to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), without further immigration, the old-age dependency ratio will rise to about 44 by the 2050s, meaning 100 working-age people will have to support nearly half as many retirees. To maintain the status quo, the UK needs a net immigration of 400,000 to over 700,000 people annually, about 1% of the population. This is not an absurd figure. Canada has maintained a similar proportion for years, and Australia’s net immigration reached 518,000 in the 2022-23 fiscal year, nearly 2% of its population. Advanced countries have long understood that immigration is not a threat but a lifeline.n

nThe UK is already on this path. The ONS estimates that net immigration reached 960,000 by June 2023; although it fell to about 720,000 the following year, it remains higher than pre-pandemic levels. Most of these immigrants come from non-EU regions, entering on work or study visas. The issue is not the numbers, but the direction. The government dares not admit this is a long-term phenomenon, treating it instead as a “temporary imbalance.” The result? Housing shortages, strained healthcare, and crowded education. Without prepared policies, public sentiment naturally turns negative. Then politicians claim they must “control immigration.”n

nRegrettably, few in mainstream politics dare to mention the words “population structure.” Everyone talks about borders, security, and asylum, yet no one acknowledges: without an influx of young workers, who will pay taxes? Who will care for the sick? Who will support the nation? Reducing immigration is easy, but the cost is borne by every pensioner’s pension and every patient’s surgery schedule. Pretending there is no cost is the most expensive illusion of our time.n

nEncouraging childbirth? It sounds appealing but fails in practice. The total fertility rate in England and Wales is only 1.41 in 2024, and South Korea’s has dropped to 0.72. Countries offer subsidies, tax benefits, and childcare, but none have succeeded. Even if more children were born today, they would only enter the workforce in over twenty years, and the state must first bear the cost of their education and healthcare. By the time these children grow up, the aging problem will already be overwhelming.n

nHealthcare illustrates the issue best. In the NHS in England, one in five employees is not British, with even higher proportions among doctors and nurses. Without them, the entire system would immediately become unbalanced. To reduce reliance on foreigners, more local training and retention are needed, but this requires money, time, and political will. In recent years, we have lacked all three.n

nImmigration is not a panacea, but it is a tourniquet. Foreign populations will also age, that is a fact; but without them, society will age even faster. Immigration policy should act as a “buffer,” buying ten to twenty years to restructure, boost productivity, and improve education and housing supply. Otherwise, aging and xenophobia will only drag the UK down together.n

nAging is certain, and numbers do not lie. The UK can choose to face it, using planned immigration to support intergenerational balance; or it can choose to evade it, allowing taxes to rise, pensions to shrink, and healthcare to collapse. The question is not whether to open the door, but whether to take responsibility for reality.n

nThe UK’s Capital Gains Tax (CGT) has long been criticized as “too low.” Critics argue that it is significantly lower than the combined burden of income tax and National Insurance (NI), thus favoring “unearned income.” Currently, the highest income tax rate is 45%, with employees contributing an additional 2% to NI, while employers bear about 15%. When accounting for the tapering of tax allowances, the marginal tax rate can exceed 60%. In contrast, the maximum CGT rate is only 24%, which inevitably fuels public discontent.n

nHowever, the core issue is not the tax rate but the tax base. The current system calculates gains based on nominal prices, without adjusting for inflation. If an asset appreciates by 50% over ten years, 30% of that could merely reflect currency depreciation. Investors see no real increase in purchasing power, yet they are taxed on this illusory “gain.” Regardless of whether the tax rate is high or low, this is unfair. Although the government has not explicitly raised taxes, it effectively broadens the tax base through inflation, thereby collecting more in a roundabout way. This approach is neither honest nor does it reward long-term investment.n

nThe UK once had a more reasonable system. From 1982, asset costs could be adjusted for inflation, taxing only real gains. In 1998, then-Chancellor Gordon Brown abolished indexation in favor of “taper relief,” citing “simplification.” This new system reduced tax liability based on asset type and holding period, theoretically encouraging long-term investment but in practice making the system more complex. Taxpayers had to determine asset nature, calculate holding periods, and apply various taper coefficients. A decade later, Chancellor Alistair Darling reformed it again, abolishing taper relief in favor of a flat 18% rate, and introduced “Entrepreneurs’ Relief” (now Business Asset Disposal Relief), taxing the first £1 million of gains from business sales at just 10%. While this appeared to simplify the system, it actually added layers of complexity and permanently removed inflation adjustment, detaching the tax base from reality.n

nTo restore fairness, the tax system should return to basics. Inflation is not income and should be excluded; real returns are the true gains and should be taxed at the same rate as wages. By adjusting costs according to the Consumer Price Index and taxing real gains as income, the disparity between labor and capital taxation can be eliminated, reducing the incentive to disguise wages as capital gains to avoid taxes.n

nA transitional arrangement could adopt a “choice at sale, time-limited” model. The government could set a one-year transition period during which taxpayers could choose between the old or new system upon asset sale. After the transition, all transactions would follow the new system, with newly acquired assets immediately subject to it. This design requires no valuation, ensures a smooth transition, and avoids a long-term dual system. Since the new system taxes real gains at income tax rates, many investors might cash out before the reform to lock in the old 24% rate, potentially increasing government revenue in the short term. In the long run, higher rates and a smaller tax base are expected to offset each other, maintaining overall tax revenue stability.n

nA fair tax system is not about high or low rates but about honestly defining “income.” As long as inflation is treated as income for taxation, the system will remain unbalanced. Only by taxing inflation-adjusted real returns at the same rate as wages can distortions be eliminated, bringing capital and labor back to the same standard.n

nIn Hong Kong, identity cards are an integral part of life. Whether enrolling in school, opening a bank account, renting a property, or getting a job, this small card is indispensable. Its necessity is unquestioned. Across Europe, most countries have long established identity card systems and are progressively digitizing them. The UK, however, remains a “cardless nation,” lacking both physical identity cards and a unified national digital version. In 2010, the coalition government abolished the previous administration’s identity card scheme and destroyed the database the following year. This absence of a system is increasingly becoming a vulnerability in the digital age. Without a convenient and reliable identity tool, public services operate sluggishly, and opportunities for illegal activities abound.n

nThe UK’s identity verification system is highly fragmented. Different procedures exist for tax filing, welfare claims, healthcare, employment, and housing. Citizens repeatedly submit the same information across various departments, leading to high administrative costs and frequent errors. In contrast, many European countries have established unified electronic identity infrastructures, enabling both public and private sectors to verify identities within a secure framework. Users need only authenticate once, allowing them to handle data with the “minimum disclosure principle,” such as confirming age eligibility without revealing birth dates. If the UK could establish such a foundational system, it would not only reduce document duplication but also enhance privacy protection and trust. For those lacking smart devices or internet access, the government could still provide non-digital options and on-site assistance to ensure no one is excluded.n

nImmigration and labor market pressures further highlight the issue. Without a unified identity system, frontline personnel often struggle to verify an individual’s true identity promptly. Illegal immigrants can present fake documents claiming to be British citizens, while unscrupulous employers or landlords can argue in court that they “did their best to check but couldn’t distinguish between real and fake,” thus evading responsibility. The current “Right to Work” and “Right to Rent” verification systems are fragmented and complex, leaving room for document forgery. Adopting verifiable, traceable, and revocable digital identities would allow employers and landlords to instantly verify the legal status of individuals, while maintaining audit records. This would close loopholes in illegal employment and black market rentals, offering greater protection to law-abiding businesses and citizens.n

nFiscal integrity and trust are also affected. HM Revenue and Customs estimates that tax losses due to evasion, misreporting, and fraud amount to tens of billions of pounds annually. The Daily Telegraph suggests that enhancing verification through digital identities could help the government recover approximately £600 million in taxes each year. This is not about increasing taxes but plugging gaps, ensuring honest taxpayers no longer foot the bill for fraudsters. When welfare claims and tax filings are based on verified identities, processes become faster and more accurate, raising the cost of fraud and enabling quicker approval for genuinely eligible individuals. Such systemic reform would enhance fairness and instill confidence in public finances.n

nNaturally, privacy and surveillance risks must be handled with care. The UK’s previous attempt to implement identity cards failed due to societal distrust in the government’s ability to protect data. Any new initiative must prioritize rights protection. First, information disclosure should be minimized and not centralized in a single database. Second, system design must be transparent and subject to external oversight, ensuring any cross-purpose data usage is legally justified and traceable. Third, offline options must be retained for vulnerable groups to prevent new forms of social exclusion due to technology. If these principles are upheld, digital identities could enhance rather than diminish privacy, empowering citizens to have greater control over their personal data.n

nThe implementation should start with high-risk and high-frequency scenarios, such as work rights, rental rights, and tax verification, gradually extending to healthcare and local government services. The government should also publish performance metrics, such as reductions in illegal employment cases, declines in tax error rates, and improvements in public service efficiency. Most European countries have already demonstrated that identity systems are not antithetical to freedom. With clear boundaries, strict oversight, and defined purposes, identity infrastructure is the foundation upon which a free society operates. Hong Kong’s experience also shows that with reasonable system design and sufficient credibility, identity cards can simultaneously safeguard privacy and efficiency. For the UK to restore order and trust, rebuilding a credible digital identity system is no longer a question of whether to implement it, but how to do so.n

nIn the UK, whether in London, Manchester, Glasgow, or a remote small town, you can always find a Wetherspoon. This is the most iconic chain pub in the UK, humorously referred to by Hong Kongers as the ‘British Café de Coral.’ With affordable prices, simple meals, and a casual atmosphere, it has its own order. In the morning, it’s a place for the elderly to read newspapers; at lunchtime, it fills with workers and students; and at night, it becomes a gathering spot for people to drink and chat. It is not just a pub but a part of everyday British life.n

nWetherspoon was founded by Tim Martin in 1979, with the first pub opening in Muswell Hill, North London. The name carries a hint of humor: ‘Wetherspoon’ was taken from a teacher at Martin’s school who struggled to control the class, while ‘J D’ was borrowed from a character in an American TV series. This anti-establishment humor perfectly aligns with the brand’s later positioning: practical without pretension. The company went public in 1992 and now has over 700 branches, making it one of the most influential food and beverage chains in the UK.n

nIts expansion strategy is unique. Many Wetherspoon pubs are located in former post offices, banks, or theaters, retaining the original building structure while adding local history introductions and custom carpets. Each pub has an independent name, such as The Moon Under Water, The Gate Clock, or The Robert Shaw, paying tribute to local figures or landmarks. This local naming creates a sense of familiarity, but the operations behind it are highly standardized: a unified menu, interior design, and mobile app across the country. No matter which one you enter, you feel ‘the same yet different’—this is the secret of its success.n

nWetherspoon’s business model extends beyond pubs. Its Wetherspoon Hotels offer affordable accommodation, often co-located with pubs, allowing customers to ‘eat, drink, and stay’ in one place. Travelers can enjoy coffee during the day and a drink at night before heading upstairs to rest. These hotels are usually located in city centers or near train stations, offering reasonable prices and comprehensive facilities, making them popular with short-term travelers and business people. This cross-industry operation not only increases revenue but also reinforces the brand’s image of ‘affordable convenience.’n

nTo summarize Wetherspoon’s success, it can be attributed to three characteristics: cheap, fast, and inclusive.n

nCheap is its foundation. Wetherspoon leverages economies of scale to lower costs, insisting on small profits but quick turnover. In an era when the average price of a pint of beer has exceeded £5, it still sells for just over £2. Coffee, breakfast, and all-day meals are also highly competitive. Over two decades, the proportion of revenue from food and drink has risen from less than 20% to nearly 40%, becoming a pillar of profitability.n

nFast is its rhythm. Customers order via mobile phones, with no service charge, and meals are delivered within minutes. This streamlined design caters to modern efficiency while allowing customers to feel at ease. It is one of the few chains open from early morning until late at night, providing space for the elderly, students, workers, and travelers alike.n

nInclusivity is its spirit. Traditional pubs often belong to a specific community, but Wetherspoon welcomes everyone—from office workers to the homeless, from prams to wheelchairs. It breaks down social boundaries, restoring the pub to its role as a ‘public living room.’n

nRecently, the so-called ‘Wetherspoon Game’ has emerged: young people invite strangers via social media to order for them at different Spoons branches, then share the drinks and meals they receive. This game-like interaction may seem like a joke, but it actually reflects the brand’s cultural penetration. The game exists precisely because all branches have consistent systems, menus, and processes—this consistency allows Wetherspoon to transcend geographical boundaries and become a nationwide social platform.n

nFounder Martin has been controversial for his support of Brexit and political statements, but his business acumen remains sharp. He established non-smoking areas before government legislation and launched mobile ordering before the pandemic. This pragmatic innovation keeps the brand resilient in turbulent times.n

nIn an era when the number of pubs in the UK is declining, Wetherspoon plays a paradoxical yet important role. Some criticize it for eroding local culture through chain operations, while others believe it preserves the last space for popular socializing. It has no music, no fancy decorations, yet it allows people to sit quietly with a drink, making this simplicity a symbol of modern Britain.n

nIn times of rising living costs and increasing social division, Wetherspoon represents an undervalued virtue—affordable, accessible, and coexistent. It reminds people that true public spaces are not in expensive coffee shops or members-only clubs, but at a table where you can sit down at any time.n

nThe term “Fog City” once symbolized London, but it was not a poetic mist; it was a toxic haze of coal smoke and exhaust fumes. In the winter of 1952, a temperature inversion trapped pollution, shrouding the city in a yellowish gloom. Within five days, thousands died from respiratory distress. This “Great Smog” finally awakened the UK, leading to the 1956 Clean Air Act, which gradually phased out coal heating and established smokeless zones, marking the beginning of London’s rebirth.n

nSeventy years later, daylight once again illuminates the city. Low Emission Zones and Ultra Low Emission Zones have been implemented, forcing high-pollution vehicles off the roads. Following the 2023 expansion of the ULEZ to cover Greater London, nitrogen oxide levels have nearly halved. Electric vehicles are ubiquitous, with half of the iconic black cabs now zero-emission models. The energy mix has shifted towards natural gas and renewable sources, and both the Underground and buses are becoming cleaner. London is no longer the smog-filled city of old.n

nHowever, progress does not equate to completion. Air pollution continues to claim lives. The World Health Organization estimates that approximately eight million people die prematurely each year due to air pollution; UK research indicates that in 2019 alone, nearly 50,000 deaths were linked to pollution. In London, around 4,000 people die annually for this reason. These figures are not warnings but reminders: the air has improved, but it is not yet clean.n

nLondon’s experience is commendable and should be replicated. Manchester, Birmingham, and Bristol remain mired in congestion and exhaust, with local policies hesitant and public opinion divided. Air knows no borders, and pollution does not discriminate between north and south. If only London breathes clean air while other cities remain shrouded in smog, environmentalism becomes nothing more than an illusion on the map.n

nTrue progress envisions an era without exhaust pipes, where all cars glide silently, accompanied only by the sound of wheels and wind. Our children, or perhaps their children, may one day ask: how did you live in such dirty air? By then, the question may seem unbelievable—and rightly so.n

nLondon’s transformation from “Fog City” to “Clean City” is a triumph of policy and technology, as well as a reflection of societal introspection. Yet blue skies are not permanent, and cleanliness is not destiny. Only through continuous implementation and nationwide advancement can we ensure that the city does not revert to its shadowy past. Clean air should not be a privilege but a fundamental human right.n

nThe UK’s Department for Transport has invested heavily in creating the ‘National Parking Platform’ to address the issue of drivers downloading too many parking apps. However, this initiative has not simplified matters; instead, it has made a straightforward public service unnecessarily complex. What drivers truly need is not a multi-layered interoperable system, but a government app that can be used nationwide. Rather than establishing a massive platform for private companies to manage, the government should develop it themselves. This is not only technically feasible but also prevents the privatization of public resources once again.n

nCurrently, local governments do not develop their own parking apps but outsource this to private companies. These companies charge a ‘convenience fee’ for each transaction and profit from advertising and data analytics. The cost of this so-called ‘convenience’ is that drivers end up paying more while helping the government save on costs. Electronic payments have already reduced the costs of maintaining coin machines, handling cash, and printing tickets for local governments, which should make parking cheaper. Instead, users bear an additional burden. This inverted logic completely contradicts the principles of public service.n

nEven more absurd is that the Department for Transport has not tightened control over this outsourcing chaos but has instead created a ‘platform’ to unify intermediaries. The government funds the system’s construction and then transfers operational rights to non-profit organizations or private companies. Local governments become clients of the platform, and drivers become fee-paying subjects. Public parking is fragmented into a chargeable business, and public data is turned into a potential asset. This so-called ‘innovation’ is essentially an experiment in excessive privatization, where taxpayers fund the infrastructure while companies collect the rent.n

nIf the government genuinely wants to make parking more convenient, there is no need to take such a convoluted route. Developing a nationwide government app is no more challenging technically than building a national platform. The functionality for parking payments is already mature: entering a license plate, selecting a time slot, electronic payment, and notification reminders are all readily available technologies. Local governments only need to connect their backend systems and policies, allowing the entire nation to use a single app. Drivers would only need to download it once to use it anywhere, with clear accountability, public ownership of data, and transparent fee structures, truly benefiting the public.n

nSuch a model would better leverage economies of scale. With council car parks and street parking combined, the government is already the largest provider of parking spaces nationwide. If the entire country used the same app, the government could negotiate lower payment processing fees through centralized bargaining and share maintenance costs. The average cost per transaction would decrease, while system security and user experience would improve. This is true efficiency, relying on public unification rather than platform commissions.n

nOver 70% of drivers have encountered difficulties using existing parking apps, from unstable signals to system crashes. These problems are not due to a lack of platforms but because there are too many. If the government truly cares about the public, it should reduce the layers of intermediaries and return parking to simplicity. Drivers do not care which company operates behind the scenes; they just want to park easily anywhere without being charged ridiculous ‘convenience fees’.n

nPublic parking is a public resource and should not be packaged as a stage for corporate innovation. The government’s responsibility is to provide reliable, low-cost, and transparent services, not to let private enterprises hitch a ride. Launching a nationwide official app is not only feasible but also common sense. After all, it’s just a parking app—how hard can it be?n

nIn the UK, the term ‘small boats’ often stirs emotional reactions when discussing asylum issues, as if it were synonymous with a looming threat. However, the reality is far more complex than such slogans suggest. Since Brexit, the UK is no longer bound by the Dublin III Regulation, which allowed the transfer of asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered. With this route closed, smuggling networks have expanded, making small boat crossings a common occurrence. The problem lies in systemic gaps, not the refugees themselves. Relying on slogans for reassurance is ultimately futile.n

nAccording to Home Office data, in the year ending June 2025, about half of asylum seekers arrived in the UK through irregular routes, while another 37% entered legally on student, work, or visitor visas and applied for asylum while still within their visa validity. In other words, many enter legally and seek asylum due to worsening situations or increased personal risk. Some Hong Kong residents, entering the UK visa-free as short-term visitors with SAR passports, have also applied for asylum. The system permits this, so how is it ‘illegal’? Simplifying the entire group as illegal immigrants only obscures the issue.n

nConsider the outcomes of asylum decisions. Long-term statistics from the Parliamentary Library show that in recent years, about two-thirds of applicants eventually receive refugee status or other forms of protection after appeals and reviews. This indicates that most applicants meet the standards of the Geneva Convention. If some still insist that ‘most are bogus refugees,’ the issue lies not in the facts but in prejudice. A rational society relies on evidence, not anger, to shape policy.n

nRegarding expenditure, public misconceptions run deep. For the 2024/25 fiscal year, total public spending is approximately £1.28 trillion, with asylum support accounting for only £4 billion, or 0.31%; even at the previous year’s high of £4.7 billion, it remains just 0.3–0.4%. In comparison, NHS annual spending exceeds £200 billion, state pensions and social security cost hundreds of billions, and the defense budget surpasses £60 billion. Asylum-related spending is negligible in macroeconomic terms, and importantly, most of it falls under Official Development Assistance (ODA) projects. According to international guidelines, ODA can only be used for foreign aid, not domestic purposes. Therefore, cutting this spending would not increase budgets for domestic education, healthcare, or transport. The real expense comes from administrative delays and hotel accommodations, not the refugees themselves. Efficiency and humanity are not opposites but two sides of the same coin.n

nThe worsening ‘small boats’ crisis is rooted in systemic issues. Post-Brexit, the UK is isolated from the European asylum system, with transfer and family reunification clauses now history. The country relies on bilateral agreements, which are limited in scope and uncertain in outlook. When systems weaken, illegal networks naturally grow. Without structural repairs, political posturing and emotive slogans only add costs without solving the problem.n

nMore alarming is the shift in public discourse towards extremism. Demonizing asylum seekers often precedes a wave of xenophobia. When society routinely labels this vulnerable group as a ‘threat’ or ‘burden,’ the next targets could be legal immigrants, then non-native-born individuals, eventually leading to divisions based on race and skin color. History repeatedly shows that this path ends in division and resentment. Reason and facts may be silent, but they are never ineffective. May the UK find the courage to return to a place that values reason, upholds the rule of law, and trusts in humanity.n