To wonder what Starmer was thinking with this one

Please explain what it is then.

No, it hasn’t. If you think that then you really don’t understand what this is.

This is good clarification away from the scaremongering- thank you.

No, the cost hasn’t changed. Their company will be paying them and their Indian version of NI. British companies will be paying their staff in India plus NI. All exactly as though they weren’t working in a different country.

Gee Wizz, you really do need to re read what i wrote.

WFA cut was far too low & for the sake of 1.2 billion,may well give us a Reform Govt... a Fan fucking tastic policy!

Expenses? no it wasn't a media storm, Starmer said a new style of politics and ethics, yet took stuff the rest of us will never get... pissed off a lot of Labour voters.
They are wealthy enough to have just said NO!! but didn't greed took over, the amounts were v small.

...and yes i know plenty of Remainers who have and will vote Reform... their reasoning? "Brexit is done, no going back, no one is suggesting this, not even LD, so may as well try Reform, all other options failed.." sort of thing.

Apparently, they thought that other countries would be lining up to do trade deals with us without us having to make any concessions at all. I guess that was how things were going to be in the sunlit uplands that they were promised..

By the way, this is what the Brexiteers voted for.

It’s the same deal that, for eg, French or Norwegian workers get so why the froth? Oh wait, Indians ….

Absolutely, let's see what happens.

Indian workers will still have to meet the minimum salary requirements for their visas. It might be true that some would be willing to accept lower salaries than their UK counterparts would, but if that's the case, that would be no different from the status quo so I'm not sure why it's relevant?

And indeed, if it's the case that the salaries for Indian workers are likely to be much lower, then any perceived saving for employers is also lower and there even more likely to be offset by the other costs such as visa fees, NHS surcharges and location costs.

Of course, most IT jobs can be outsourced and done remotely in any case.

If the Telegraph are screaming about it, ditto the Mail and the Express, it helps to do some more digging for actual facts before having an opinion. Swallowing their rancid nuggets without chewing tends to give one bad indigestion.

The NI thing is a storm in a teacup, whipping up by people with faux grievance and a fucking great big agenda.

The no NI charge is for a small number of employees on short term visas, who are still paying welfare contributions back in India.

To read the right wing press, it sounds like a free for all, but it definitely isn't.

It's such a shame that we have to dig so deep into stories to get the full picture, whilst hoi poloi are up in arms in indignation because they believe all the tabloid turds.

Its a good deal as I read it. Allows the UK to sell goods into a strong market, NI concession is not major.

20% of an Indian IT salary if not an equivalent of 20% of a UK IT salary.
It’s a cost lowering for the outsourcers.Only time will tell. In four years let’s see what happened.

Has the cost really dropped by 20%?

The Indian equivalent of national insurance will still need to be paid. Added to this, employers will need to fund relocation costs, visa fees, NHS surcharge etc. It isn't the big deal that you seem to think it is.

He should know the Reform mob are not going to read too deeply.

@myhightree if the working class woman works for a company making UK-manufactured cosmetics, medical devices, aerospace items, lamb, salmon, electrical machinery, soft drinks, chocolate, and biscuits then that is good news for the company and her, as exports of those goods to India will increase and her job security is likely to improve

If she likes textiles products (clothes, duvet covers, sheets etc) for her family, she will now find that they come in cheaper from India, along with other goods that we also currently import from India.

Trade deals tend not to be about housing and local infrastructure. So she won't see any change there, in the same way that she wouldn't from our trade deal with Australia.

The cost of the Indians has dropped 20%. What do you think is going to happen?

Where is your data that 300,000 British born UK nationals are living in India?

All this talk of "unlimited visas" is a deliberate attempt to mislead and scaremonger.

True, there is no arbitrary cap on the number of visas that can be granted to Indian citizens, but there wasn't a cap before this deal either. And the trade agreement hasn't reduced the visa requirements either, so nothing has really changed on that front. It is absurd to draw comparisons with Freedom of Movement, and you know it. You're just relying on the hope that others won't.

Can you share your data on that? I can’t find it anywhere.

I'm surprised that with the hundreds of thousands of highly skilled Indians who came in the last few years under the Boriswave, there are still more needed.

I would like to understand how this deal benefits the person on the street, for example, a working class woman in the north of England? How is she likely to benefit from this? Will her town see more affordable housing, will this reduce pressure on the NHS, will her kids be able to get into the local school, will roads around her town be less congested, will she pay less tax on her minimum-wage job, will she be able to retire earlier, will her community be more cohesive or more divided?

Or will the reality be that in a few years time the housing crisis will be even worse with families living in one bedroom, but whichever Government is in power hailing the 0.01% added to GDP by infinity more people in the country?

It’s a lowering of cost for Indian outsourcing companies and unlimited visas.
Freedom of Movement was a comparable scenario.
We expected a few thousand Poles, and got a million.
We can speculate what’s going to happen, based on the past, but only time will tell.

I’m not a racist, I am an immigrant abroad and my whole team is Polish, Spanish and % wise mostly Indian nationals. I have seen what happens first hand. Salaries for IT in the UK will stagnate, jobs will be lost to Indians.

As I mentioned, it’s good we have a trade deal with India, excellent in fact, but there will be consequences to our labour market.

.Some people are missing the “nuance” here. This is purely about trade and future growth opportunities and tapping into one of the fastest growing economies, when ours is stagnant, which happens to be the one, which from a security perspective, is arguably safest for us, as well.
Secondly, it is not pro the Muslim Labour vote either. Go look up what is happening between India and Pakistan right now. Furthermore, the current Indian PM has been criticised by the Muslim community in India, repetitively. So Labour are not buying the Muslim or minority vote with this, not at all. It’s an economic deal primarily.

Finally, China tends to back Pakistan because historically India gave refuge to the Dalai Lama from Tibet. China obviously has a problem with that.
China is a fast growing economy etc but there are security concerns with the Chinese Government (not with the people itself) for us, whether anyone likes that or not.

Starmer should do as many deals as possible, especially if there is a chance of someone like Farage getting in. It is the grown up thing to do and in the best interests of the country long term.

Someone else already posted upthread the policy statement which is a more factual and complete laydown of the deal.

UK-India Trade Deal: conclusion summary

I found it very useful in getting underneath all the competing rhetoric and should raise a few "why is this lying bastard lying to me" questions about the terms in which it's being described by political and media figures.

This type of arrangement has been around for a very long time. I did a secondment (ie fixed term, coming home) to the States. Initially a J1 visa - i didn't pay FICA, then after18 months moved to an L1 visa where I did. That was over 30 years ago. I don't get the issue. It is considered beneficial to have good quality staff move around companies.