Korres Wild Rose Mask

An excellent facemask which is thick and satisfyingly white and opaque

£16 for 40ml

Launched: April 2007
Tested: August 2008

Stockists:

Korres Natural Products flagship store: 124 Kings Road, London and Unit 1, Buchanan Galleries, Glasgow
Harvey Nichols (nationwide), Harrods, Liberty, Selfridges (London), select John Lewis and independents nationwide.
Shop-in-shops, House of Fraser, Croydon (T: 0870 1607229) Birmingham (T: 0870 1607225)
Beautyexpert.co.uk, Bathandunwind.com, Hqhair.com, Asos.com and Lookfantastic.com

This is an “instant brightening and illuminating” face mask that comes in a glass jar. It’s an excellent product, it’s thick, and a satisfyingly white and opaque; just the sort of face mask you want when you’re having a beautifying evening in. It doesn’t dry or crack, there’s nothing uncomfortable about wearing it (you could put it on and get carried away on the phone and still not end up unable to move your face).

It does make you look perkier, although I’m not sure it would redress the ravages of no sleep and excess drinking; but it is gently moisturising and works with even a dry, mature skin. You apply it to dry skin and leave on for 15 mins before rinsing off. It fails to go into these more detailed instructions on the actual jar which is annoying.

Ingredients:

Ingredients: Aqua (Water), C.I. 77891, Glycerin, Behenyl Alcohol, Butyrospermum Parkii (Shea Butter), C12-13 Alkyl Lactate, Dicaprylyl Carbonate, Dicaprylyl Ether, Rosa Canina Oil, Cetearyl Alcohol, Beeswax,
Mannitol, Ceteth-20 Phosphate, Argania Spinosa Kernel Oil, Allantoin, Arginine, Ascorbic Acid, Ascorbyl Palmitate, Benzyl Benzoate, Benzyl Salicylate, Butylphenyl Methylpropional, Caprylyl Glycol, Citric Acid, Citronellol, Dextrin, Dicetyl Phosphate, Eugenol, Ferulic Acid, Hexyl Cinnamal, Hydroxyisohexyl 3-Cyclohexene Carboxaldehyde, Isohexadecane,
Alpha- Isomethyl Ionone, Panthenol, Parfum (Fragrance), PEG-8, Persea Gratissima (Avocado) Oil, Persea Gratissima (Avocado) Oil Unsaponifiables,
Phenoxyethanol, Polysorbate-80, Sodium Acrylate/Acryloyldimethyl Taurate Copolymer, Sodium Ascorbyl Phosphate, Sodium Citrate, Sodium Gluconate,
Sodium Phytate, Tocopherol, Waltheria Indica Leaf Extract.
 

Annalisa Barbieri was in fashion PR for five years before going to the Observer to be fashion assistant. She has worked for the Evening Standard and the Times and was one of the fashion editors on the Independent on Sunday for five years, where she wrote the Dear Annie column. She was fishing correspondent of the Independent from 1997-2004.
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken truth: Britain needs immigrants.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.