Changes to immigration rules announced by Starmer

How does that apply to the NHS?

@Digdongdoo

"Have you given any thought to how or if salaries can be increased to that level?"

By the same way that every other employer does by either increasing prices and or reducing existing profits.

It's not complicated.

Do you mean for care work too?

Have you given any thought to how or if salaries can be increased to that level?

That wasn't the point being made. The point being made was that unions are in favour of mass unskilled immigration. They are inevitably going to support their members.

@DuncinToffee

"But that takes time and we need those roles filled now

Or are you planning to force people to take up those jobs?"

Not once have I suggested forcing people to take up jobs- that not the way a free labour market works.

If you increase salaries then you will have no problem filling those roles. And depending on how much you increase those salaries will influence how quickly you fill those vacancies.

Yes but politicians are not interested in the net cost years down the line, its the figures next quarter that count.

In the links you post, the Unions are against cuts to services, which is going to happen when we remove Care Work from the visa process, thats not pro immigration.

There are 135k vacant posts in Social Care, even with the visas, this isn't going to be filled by taking the long term unemployed, threatening them with sanctions and forcing them to do these roles.

It may well increase the retention issue as decent carers leave, unable to work along side people who shouldn't be in the role.

Increase pay and ex carers will return, the role consistently scores highly in job satisfaction surveys.

But that takes time and we need those roles filled now

Or are you planning to force people to take up those jobs?

@MiloMinderbinder925

"That's not evidence that unions are in favour of mass amounts of unskilled workers. Do you expect unions not to support workers?"

It is evidence that Unions object to the recent proposed tightening of immigration of "low skilled" workers.

Do you know how much these visas cost?

On average somewhere around £4-5K per person, every 2.5 years, paid up front. That could be £20K for a family of four.

It’s completely unfair to change the goal posts for people who made commitments to uproot their lives to move to the UK for work or family with the understanding that after five years they would be eligible for ILR.

@DuncinToffee

"That are sectors with high vacancy levels. How do you propose they fill those?"

By the same way every employer in a free market fills high vacancy levels - higher wages, better working conditions and better training.

Emydon't get to avoid this by importing cheap labour and then passing the benefit cost of 9 million economically inactive UK nationals on to the taxpayers.

@jasflowers

"Isn't GDP influenced by immigration levels?

Read recently that the treasury is always against curbs because it lowers the figures.

So it would appear that whilst the Tories boast about GDP growth pre GE, it was only because it was as a result of 1m net migration - which they are now totally against and blaming the Govt for!

Politicians!!!"

To an extent GDP can be boosted by immigration levels. But it depends a lot on:
Type of migrants- educated migrants in professional roles do indeed increase GDP. But "low skilled jobs" ones don't.
Numbers of migrants - if you have migration levels of up to 100k per year then yes it does improve the GDP. But beyond that the benefit declines until it becomes a negative impact on GDP.
Age of migrants- in the short term the younger the migrants the bigger the benefit. But like everyone the younger migrants will get eventually old whereupon they start becoming a net cost to GDP.

That's not evidence that unions are in favour of mass amounts of unskilled workers. Do you expect unions not to support workers?

That are sectors with high vacancy levels. How do you propose they fill those?

@DuncinToffee
"How have 'the left' and unions been in favour of high levels of 'low skilled' immigration?"

www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/11/labour-axing-care-worker-visa-will-put-services-at-risk-say-unions-and-care-leaders

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/nurses-universities-labour-government-immigration-plan-visas-migrants-b1227287.html

www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/may/12/immigration-keir-starmer-labour-reform-visa-foreign-workers-uk-politics-latest-live-news

The same posters would be using those attacks on here. Now Starmer turns on a dime you see the fresh take. Not a dog whistle apparently.

@EasternStandard

"I don’t think politicians want to tackle it particularly. Well they didn’t until Reform was looking likely to win.

And that’s down to public sentiment.

Two minutes ago it was dog whistle apparently."

Fair point. I guess previously anyone who expressed concern on immigration was accused of being a racist or a bigot:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/28/gordon-brown-bigoted-woman

But I guess this accusation has been so overused as to now become meaningless. That said there are still some such as Lucy Powell who are still stuck in the 2010s and continue with with the racism angle :

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2ew9jnj2p1o.amp

Isn't GDP influenced by immigration levels?

Read recently that the treasury is always against curbs because it lowers the figures.

So it would appear that whilst the Tories boast about GDP growth pre GE, it was only because it was as a result of 1m net migration - which they are now totally against and blaming the Govt for!

Politicians!!!

On the nonsense about Unions being pro immigration, maybe look at what they were saying pre EU referendum?

Many union leaders were for Brexit, precisely because of migration levels and lower wages.

How have 'the left' and unions been in favour of high levels of 'low skilled' immigration?

@bombastix

"Your last point is an interesting one as this wasn’t always the case. In fact unions had been quite hostile. I suppose if you look at who is a member now then it will show that their members are in fact representing migration patterns over the last 20 years. They are no longer beer and sandwiches and smoke filled rooms."

True but the role of the unions is still to protect their current members and to an extent the working class in general. It's not to help employers make higher profits by avoiding paying UK nationals the necessary wages to fill positions by simply importing cheaper labour.

I don’t think politicians want to tackle it particularly. Well they didn’t until Reform was looking likely to win.

And that’s down to public sentiment.

Two minutes ago it was dog whistle apparently.

@DuncinToffee

"Yet it was the Tory government that increased low skilled immigration with Brexit and post covid.

Whilst low paid, social care work is not low skilled."

Exactly it was definitely in the Tory / right wing interest to increase "low skilled" (I hate that term) immigration because it then enables companies requiring such staff to import labour at lower salaries to work in worse working conditions and avoid training compared to hiring UK nationals.

This then allows the employers to make higher profits.

But why oh why would the left and even the Unions be in favour of high levels of "low skilled " immigration- it just doesn't make sense. Unless of course they also want to help those companies to make higher profits through importing cheap labour.

A lot of stereotypes in one post. It's quite impressive.

Where have I posted about the Tories? That’s you on every post. You’re posting against info I haven’t actually said. When I post Reform is the threat to Labour you can work out I don’t think the Tories are, right?

It’s not hard.

And LD won’t win.

Morally and ethically, unaccompanied children seeking asylum deserve to be treated differently than young adults seeking asylum, but such preferential treatment is fraught with the difficulty of ascertaining the correct age of asylum seekers. In 2022 the previous government established the National Age Assessment Board (NAAB) and legislation made provision for the use of x-rays and MRIs in age assessments

This has given rise to a considerable number of legal challenges over the years, and judgments from the Supreme Court down on topics including what happens when there are conflicting age assessments, when should a person be re-assessed and the resources involved in undertaking such assessments.

The creation of NAAB was not without controversy, particularly in social worker circles. The British Association of Social Workers urged practitioners not to take jobs with the NAAB, on the basis that it considered that practitioners' professional judgment risked being compromised, in the light of government rhetoric about adult asylum seekers exploiting the system by claiming to be children. However, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 was also controversial because it made provision for regulations to be introduced which allowed a variety of ‘scientific methods’ for age assessments, such as x-rays of teeth and bones of the hands and wrist and MRIs of knees and collar bones. Multiple organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) and British Association of Social Workers, have voiced strongly-worded concerns about the introduction of such scientific age assessments in the UK, both because these methods are not reliable and also because they raise ethical issues and issues surrounding informed consent.

(My italics)