HOW long should you live in Britain before you can become British?
Most people think that five years is about the right length of time to take up citizenship.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch now says that seems a decade too short – so she proposes that nobody should be able to start a citizenship application until they have lived in this country for at least 15 years.
What makes this surprising is that Badenoch herself is a strong example of the migrant as a patriot. One of her biggest themes is how we need to make integration matter more. So there is a strange dissonance in her first big policy idea being how to deter and to delay people from becoming British.
Badenoch recognises that she was lucky herself. She was born British – because her parents chose to come to London for her birth, in January 1980, shortly before Margaret Thatcher ended birthright citizenship in the 1981 British Nationality Act.
Returning as a 16-year-old, Badenoch has said her British passport felt to her teenage self like the golden ticket which let Charlie into Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory in Roald Dahl’s book, describing herself as “to all intents and purposes a first generation migrant” in her maiden speech.
Badenoch has no personal responsibility for either her parents’ choices – to secure British citizenship for their first two children under the rules as they stood – nor the Thatcher government’s decision to change that law.
What she is responsible for is the direction of Conservative policy now. Had young Badenoch not arrived as a citizen in 1996, should she have been eligible to become British in 2002 – or would it have been better to wait until 2011 to make sure she would make a positive contribution? Should a bright young Nigerian or Indian graduate today, who qualifies under the postBrexit system, be eligible for citizenship in 2031 or wait 10 years longer?
Few people find it a persuasive idea that the best way to show British citizenship is special is to put it out of reach for so long. New Focaldata polling for British Future finds that a majority of people think five years is long enough. Threequarters of Labour and Liberal Democrat voters believe that, while Tory voters strongly prefer a fiveyear qualifying period to 15 years – by 50 per cent to 12 per cent.
Kemi Badenoch
A surly nine per cent of the public are opposed to migrants ever being given the chance to become British, including a quarter of Nigel Farage’s Reform voters, though the 15year proposal even goes too far for a majority of the Reform vote, overcompensating in its attempt to pitch to them.
Though presented as a response to high levels of immigration, this is not directly an immigration policy at all, but rather about what happens once people have been here five or six years and want to settle in Britain.
The government also has public support – strongly from Labour voters – for allowing those granted refugee status to become citizens six years later, removing the legal bar on citizenship, forever, if people initially arrived without permission to claim asylum.
It is easy to say what significantly cutting net migration would involve. A government would simply need to decide how much to tighten the criteria about who gets a visa to live, work or study in Britain.
Yet the dilemmas of control make it harder to turn slogans about numbers into substantive policies to reduce them. After all, Boris Johnson’s Conservative government had reasons for each of its decisions to liberalise immigration rules – for NHS and social care visas, feepaying students, and events in Hong Kong and Ukraine. What ministers never had was any mechanism of accountability within government or parliament to consider what their choices might add up to – beyond a late panic six months before leaving office, after realising their policies had accidentally trebled net migration after pledging to cut it.
Net migration is set to halve from the extraordinary peak levels – and the government should introduce a more rational process for future policymaking with an annual migration plan in parliament.
This government should recognise the substantive and symbolic value of citizenship too – which spans those with different views of immigration levels. There is a preference for encouraging settled migrants to become British, which involves taking the citizenship and language tests, even pledging allegiance to the King, as part of the symbolism and substance of choosing to become British.
Let us have the debate about the right immigration choices to make now. But we should be able to find common ground on encouraging people who come and settle here to become British and to celebrate it when they do.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration
IN SIR KEIR STARMER’S cabinet reshuffle last week, triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner, the prime minister shifted Jonathan Reynolds from business and trade secretary and president of the board of trade after barely a year in the post to chief whip, making him responsible for the party.
The move doesn’t make much sense. At Chequers, the UK-India Free Trade Agreement was signed by Reynolds, and the Indian commerce and industry minister, Piyush Goyal. They had clearly established a friendly working relationship.
Reynolds apparently bought Goyal an ice cream some weeks ago when they were walking in London’s Hyde Park and ironed out the last remaining problems.
Goyal will have to start all over again with Reynolds’s replacement, Peter Kyle.
At least, Lisa Nandy, who managed to sign a cultural agreement with India, remains culture secretary, despite persistent reports she was due for the sack. I have high hopes of Kanishka Narayan, who has been appointed parliamentary under-secretary in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Crucially, chancellor Rachel Reeves has not been given another job.
But, in his heart of hearts, Starmer must know he cannot win the next general election if she remains his chancellor. Her vindictive VAT raid on private schools has ruined the lives of many children and forced school after school to close. And the rules on inheritance tax and non-doms have driven many Indian entrepreneurs to flee to Dubai. Starmer should be “pragmatic” – a word he likes – and reverse these policies for the good of the country.
By clicking the 'Subscribe’, you agree to receive our newsletter, marketing communications and industry
partners/sponsors sharing promotional product information via email and print communication from Garavi Gujarat
Publications Ltd and subsidiaries. You have the right to withdraw your consent at any time by clicking the
unsubscribe link in our emails. We will use your email address to personalize our communications and send you
relevant offers. Your data will be stored up to 30 days after unsubscribing.
Contact us at data@amg.biz to see how we manage and store your data.
Finding romance today feels like trying to align stars in a night sky that refuses to stay still
When was the last time you stumbled into a conversation that made your heart skip? Or exchanged a sweet beginning to a love story - organically, without the buffer of screens, swipes, or curated profiles? In 2025, those moments feel rarer, swallowed up by the quickening pace of life.
We are living faster than ever before. Cities hum with noise and neon, people race between commitments, and ambition seems to be the rhythm we all march to. In the process, the simple art of connection - eye contact, lingering conversations, the gentle patience of getting to know someone - feels like it is slipping through our fingers.
Whether you’re single, searching, or settled, the landscape is shifting. Some turn to apps for convenience; others look for love in cafés, gyms, workplaces or community spaces. But the challenge remains the same: how do we connect deeply in a world designed to move at lightning speed?
We’ve become fluent in productivity, in chasing careers, in cultivating polished identities. Yet are we forgetting how to be fluent in intimacy? When was the last time you sat across from someone and truly listened - without checking your phone, without planning the next step, without treating time like a currency to be spent?
It’s a strange paradox: we have more access to people than ever before, yet many feel more isolated. Fun is always available - dinners, drinks, nights out, fleeting encounters - but fulfilment is harder to grasp. Are we mistaking access for intimacy? Are we human, or are we slowly adapting into versions of ourselves stripped of those raw, humanistic qualities - vulnerability, patience, tenderness - that once defined love?
Perhaps we’ve grown comfortable with the fast exit. It’s easier to ghost than to explain. Easier to keep moving than to pause. But what does that cost us? What do we lose when romance becomes a checkbox on an already overstuffed to-do list?
The truth is - the heart doesn’t move at the pace of technology or ambition. It moves slowly, awkwardly, with a rhythm that resists acceleration. Maybe that’s the point. Love has always lived in the messy spaces - hesitant pauses, nervous laughter, words spoken without rehearsal.
So the real question for 2025 is not “Have we gone too far?” but “Can we afford to slow down?” Can we still allow ourselves the sweetness of beginnings - the chance encounters, the unplanned moments, the quiet courage to be open?
Because in the end, connection is not about speed or access—it’s about presence. In a world that won’t stop moving, choosing to be present might be the bravest act of love we have left.
Instagram & TikTok: @Bombae.mix
Keep ReadingShow less
Indian infantrymen on the march in France in October 1914 during World War I. (Photo: Getty Images)
This country should never forget what we all owe to those who won the second world war against fascism. So the 80th anniversary of VE Day and VJ Day this year have had a special poignancy in bringing to life how the historic events that most of us know from grainy black and white photographs or newsreel footage are still living memories for a dwindling few.
People do sometimes wonder if the meaning of these great historic events will fade in an increasingly diverse Britain. If we knew our history better, we would understand why that should not be the case.
For the armies that fought and won both world wars look more like the Britain of 2025 in their ethnic and faith mix than the Britain of 1945 or 1918. The South Asian soldiers were the largest volunteer army in history, yet ensuring that their enormous contribution is fully recognised in our national story remains an important work in progress.
About half of the public do know that Indian soldiers took part. It is better known among British Asians - with almost 6 out of 10 aware of the contribution. Yet while that means that more than three million British Asians have heard something about this, that suggests too that a couple of million of Asians in Britain today remain unaware of the South Asian contribution to the war effort.
It is less well understood that Hindu, Sikh and Muslim soldiers fought alongside British officers in the largest volunteer army that the world has ever seen. About four in ten report being aware that there were Hindu and Sikh soldiers in the Indian Army - while just under a third are aware of the Muslim contribution. Yet there is an appetite to learn more. Three-quarters of the public believe that learning more about this history could help social cohesion in Britain. It is a view held as strongly by the white British and by British Asians.
So the My Family Legacy project from British Future, the Royal British Legion and Eastern Eye seeks to make a contribution to doing that. It aims to raise awareness of the South Asian contribution in the world wars, among South Asian communities and people from all backgrounds in Britain today. It asks British Asian families to share stories and pictures of ancestors who served, creating an archive for future generations.
When we talk about the Indian Army, we are talking about the army drawn from the India of the 1940s. This was pre-independence India – so it included modern day India and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The Indian Army grew from 195,000 men in the Autumn of 1939 to over 2 million by the end of the war. A fledgling Indian Air Force went from 285 men to 29,000. This made the Indian army of the Second World War the largest volunteer army in history.
It may sound strange to our modern ears: that Indian soldiers would volunteer for the army of the British imperial power. Yet those who volunteered often saw the German and Japanese regimes as an existential threat as well as believing that India should govern itself after the war. So the Indian Army volunteers outnumbered – by a 50:1 ratio – the 43,000 rebels who heeded the call to form a rebel army for the Germans and Japanese.
We should not shy away from the complexity and controversies of understanding that we are a post-imperial society. But this country’s role in winning the Second World War should always endure as a source of shared pride.
It matters because we should honour the past properly: we should recognise the service and commemorate the sacrifice of all who contributed, especially when the liberties of all of us today are their legacy.
Yet this matters too because of how it can help us to look forward as well as back and help us to bind together our society today. To have a story of how our past, present and future are linked, is an important part of what it means to be a nation. Understanding the diversity of the war effort is a crucial way to join the dots in the making of modern post-war Britain.
That becomes all the more important in times like these, when a vocal, visible and toxic minority are making their most aggressive attempt for a generation to all into question the equal status and very presence of ethnic minorities in Britain.
Yet the toxic and racist far right fringe have always been deeply ignorant of the history of which they claim to be so proud. What could be more absurd than neo-fascists trying to wrap themselves in the very flag under which we defeated fascism - especially when that victory over fascism was achieved by multi-ethnic and multi-faith armies just as diverse as the modern Britain which honours today the victory which made this democratic and diverse society possible.
So this new effort to help people to find, document and tell their family stories of courage and contribution, service and sacrifice can make a difference. It can help show how our national symbols and traditions of Remembrance can bring today's modern, diverse Britain together ever more powerfully when we commemorate all of those who served.
Sunder Katwala is the director of thinktank British Future and the author of the book How to Be a Patriot: The must-read book on British national identity and immigration.
How noticing the changes in my father taught me the importance of early action, patience, and love
I don’t understand people who don’t talk or see their parents often. Unless they have done something to ruin your lives or you had a traumatic childhood, there is no reason you shouldn’t be checking in with them at least every few days if you don’t live with them.
Earlier this year, I had the privilege of looking after my parents – they lived with me while their old house was being sold, and their new house was being renovated.
Within this time, I noticed things happening to my dad (Chamanlal Mulji), an 81-year-old retired joiner. Dad was known as Simba when he lived in Zanzibar, East Africa because he was like a lion. A man in fairly good health, despite being an ex-smoker, he’d only had heart surgery back in 2017. In the last few years, he was having some health issues, but certain things, like his walking and driving becoming slow, and his memory failing, we just put down to old age. Now, my dad was older than my friend’s dad. Many of whom in their 70’s, dad, at 81 was an older dad, not common back in the seventies when he married my mum.
It was only when I spent extended time around my parents that I started noticing that certain things weren’t just due to old age. Some physical symptoms were more serious, but certain things like forgetting that the front door wasn’t the bathroom door, and talking about old memories thinking that they had recently happened rang alarm bells for me and I suspected that he might have dementia.
Dementia generally happens in old age when the brain starts to shrink. Someone described it to me as a person’s brain being like a bookshelf. The books at the top of the shelf are the new memories and the books at the bottom are the new memories. The books at the top have fallen off, leaving only the old memories being remembered. People with dementia are also highly likely to suffer from strokes.
Sadly, my dad was one of the few that suffered a stroke and passed away on 28th June 2025. If you have a parent, family member or anyone you know and you suspect that they might have dementia, please talk to your GP straight away. Waiting lists within the NHS are extremely LONG so the quicker people with dementia are treated, the better. Sadly, the illness cannot be reversed but medication can help it from getting worse.
One thing I would also advise is to have patience. Those suffering with dementia can be agitated and often become aggressive, but that’s only because they’re frustrated that they cannot do things the way they used to.
The disease might hide the person underneath, but there’s still a person in there who needs your love and attention.” - Jamie Calandriello
This one is for you, dad x
Keep ReadingShow less
DIVISIVE AGENDA:Police clash withprotesters outside Epping councilafter a march from the Bell Hotelhousing asylum seekers last Sunday(31)
August is dubbed 'the silly season’ as the media must fill the airwaves with little going on. But there was a more sinister undertone to how that vacation news vacuum got filled this year. The recurring story of the political summer was the populist right’s confidence in setting the agenda and the anxiety of opponents about how to respond.
Tensions were simmering over asylum. Yet frequent predictions of mass unrest failed to materialise. The patchwork of local protests and counter-protests had a strikingly different geography to last summer. The sporadic efforts of disorder came in the affluent southern suburbs of Epping and Hillingdon, Canary Wharf and Cheshunt with no disorder and few large protests in the thirty towns that saw riots last August. Prosecutions, removing local ringleaders, deter. Local cohesion has been a higher priority where violence broke out than everywhere else. Hotel use for asylum has halved - and is more common in the south. The Home Office went to court to keep asylum seekers in Epping’s Bell Hotel, for now, yet stresses its goal to stop using hotels by 2029. The Refugee Council’s pragmatic suggestion of giving time-limited leave to remain to asylum seekers from the five most dangerous countries could halve the need for hotels within months.
The drumbeat from hyping up the asylum protests helped those trying to shift the political argument to the right. Reform leader Nigel Farage set out his plans on asylum: to abolish it entirely. Any asylum seekers who did arrive would be sent somewhere, anywhere else - perhaps to a faraway island, or back to the regimes they had fled. Farage’s opponents offered the most muted criticism. Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch declared he had copied the Conservatives’ homework. The government’s main point was that Farage had not shown how it would all work in practice. The Taliban said they would be delighted for Farage to deliver those who had fled their persecution back into their clutches - and would hardly need a cash bribe, too. Opinion polls showing broad public revulsion at this idea might yet encourage opponents to challenge the principles, not just the practicalities, of Reform’s plans.
A year ago, Farage said he would not pitch ‘mass deportation’ plans that were impossible to deliver. Doing exactly that, his former MP Rupert Lowe declared this a victory for the online right - but said he would keep pushing for a ‘proper deportations’ plan to remove many millions of legal migrants too. An increasingly radicalised Elon Musk critiqued Farage’s plans as “weak sauce”, promoting Tommy Robinson’s far right street protests and even the furthest right factions who decry Robinson for not advocating the forced deportation of British-born minorities too. Even as Musk shows no limits to which racists he will personally promote, the government stays mute on an epidemic of online racism. It is a strange world where the expectations we place on every primary and secondary school on British values, tolerance, respect and the rule of law go out of the window when the world’s richest man promotes neo-Nazis. If the government cannot find a voice to challenge racism, it can expect no credibility when it talks about community cohesion from ethnic minority Britons - nor, I would hope, from many of our fellow citizens too.
It was a summer when flags could be symbols of both pride and prejudice. We wore red and white face-paint in the Katwala household to cheer England’s Lionesses to winning the women’s Euros. The St George’s bunting in our High Street in Dartford has a welcoming intent, but the red paint crosses daubed messily on our street sign send a more intimidating message. An important British ethnic minority response - from the Windrush onwards - to those questioning our status as British has been that the racists should try to learn a little bit more of the history of our country. We should be loath to let our national flags be claimed as symbols of exclusion, by those of all ethnicities and faiths doing more to say and show what they can mean when we fly them together.
That depends on preventing the populist right setting the agenda by default. The irony of Farage being dubbed a populist is that he is often on the unpopular side of most major issues - slashing public spending, scrapping human rights, ditching closer UK-EU post-Brexit links, or not bothering about climate change. Yet Farage often speaks much more confidently for what a quarter of the public think than those who could try to mobilise the anti-populist majority. So the stakes are high for prime minister Sir Keir Starmer this autumn. If Starmer does not find a stronger response, populism may turn out to be more than a passing storm, exposing a lack of strategy, leadership, and ethics that could prove fatal for this government.