To wonder what Starmer was thinking with this one

[sideeyes]

Indian nationals being cheaper to hire in the UK? Not paying NI contributions? What is the massive gain we get from this? As a life-long Labour voter this is just another policy that makes me want to cry. He just doesn’t get it, does he?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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..

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.

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.

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

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

Please explain what it is then.

Are US or Canadian workers in the UK 20% cheaper too?

Problem is that even ‘respectable’ news outlets aren’t reporting it fairly. This morning on the 11am LBC news bulletin the announcer said ‘Jonathan Reynolds is defending the trade agreement from critics who say…’. Not even a tiny mention of what the agreement involves just what the critics say which are obviously Farage et al.

It's a 2-year extension of the reciprocal agreement that we already have with India to allow social security payments to be made in the country of origin for short term expat staff who are seconded to the UK for limited periods. It is very similar to the reciprocal arrangements that we have with many other countries. As such, it really isn't the big deal that you're trying to make it out to be.

These deals take ages to put together.

The reform council elections and controversy resulting from that probably weren't even thought of when they were putting together this deal which probably took months of negotiation.

Then of course because it is so difficult and takes so long you can't change it.

And completion pops up at the very time Starmer doesn't want it to, as he probably wasn't even thinking about getting battered in a local council election by reform when the negotiations started.

Events dear boy events.

Here you go. Plus upthread Daniel Hannan’s post about it can be found. Is he anti-Labour enough for you? Because he thinks it’s a great deal.

That’s true, although he really can’t cut through about anything (nationally at least, slightly different on Ukraine in the past). I’m left of centre but by Christ I cannot stand him

Whether you like or dislike him is irrelevant to ‘cut through’. When the Mail outright lies in its headline and the BBC et all spin it negatively even while it’s being explained to them, when all the media has definitely been given the info but still try to find fault, that’s not Labour’s fault.

I’m sorry but this is always the get out clause for Labour. Yes, media bias, but what are they doing about it? Why is he not on BBC breakfast talking about this deal? His communication strategy has been awful from
the start - was that doom and gloom speech in the garden the fault of media barons? I heard it and it made me want to cry and give up. The man has no idea and needs to go.

So your issue is Starmer, not the FTA with India?

Since when did we have to like politicians and PMs? I've been conscious of politics since Mrs T came to be PM in 1979 and I'm desperately trying to think of a PM I have ever liked. I was probably the least repelled by John Major and Gordon Brown, but mostly because they were fairly grey in temperament.

Someone explain how Starmer's comms are more awful than Clown BoJo or Lettuce Truss? I'm not even a Labour supporter but from a neutral view I'm struggling to see how anyone can accuse him of being more disastrous than those two.

We don’t take many IT workers from US and Canada. Too expensive. India is still cheap. They will get too expensive sooner or later maybe, however they next cheapest place is the Philippines and they don’t have as good an education system as the Indians.

I don’t disagree that there needs to be more focus with comms.
In this case though, what can he do? Ministers have been out explaining it, but the tone of the interviews is very hostile and negative. Plus nobody is listening - they’ve looked at the incorrect (lying) headlines and drawn their conclusions. As did you in starting this thread. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reason.

They pay an NHS surcharge

It’s not about ‘taking workers’. If a British company employs someone from India (and they meet visa requirements in terms of salary etc) they have to pay NI. This is purely for Indian workers working for Indian companies being sent to the U.K. site of the same business for a short period.