Changes to immigration rules announced by Starmer

[OneAmberFinch]

Full white paper here is extensive and announces changes to all avenues of migration - basically their approach to resolving the issues of massively increased migration from 2019-2023/4.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6821aec3f16c0654b19060ac/restoring-control-over-the-immigration-system-white-paper.pdf

And Starmer's commentary on the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/ce810e3z6dkt

Handful of headline changes: default timeline to get ILR to go to 10 years instead of 5; abolishing new care worker visas; raising skills threshold for Skilled Workers back up to graduate level; increasing minimum grades required for student visas; various bits and pieces around English language requirements among several other policies

But that takes time and we need those roles filled now

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

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.

@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.

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.

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

Do you mean for care work too?

@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.

How does that apply to the NHS?

Yes because business is that simple.😂

Yes! A skilled visa is expensive and there is also a NHS supplement to be paid. Skilled visa workers pay for the NHS upfront.

A bigger concern should be how to get the UK population off of benefits and into work! There will be less need for skilled and unskilled immigrants.

The only flaw in this plan is no one, Con or Labour have any intention to increase wages.

Even if you did, by say £2ph, you'd then be paying more than an HCA and not far off a degree educated Band 5 HCP.

@DuncinToffee

"How does that apply to the NHS?"

The NHS as a public sector employer and offering a free at point of use service cannot reduce profits or charge more for their services.

Therefore if they need to pay say nurses and doctors more then the additional cost comes from either the taxpayer or cost savings/ reductions in other services.

This is exactly where we already are when if you don't pay existing doctors or nurses enough then they simply move to other sectors.

But the Government doesn't get a special deal where rather than pay the salary required to recruit, motivate and retain they simply get to import cheap labour who are willing to do the work cheaply because they have the prospect of permanent residency for them and their families after 5 (now 10 years).

Don't you remember the fume threads on here about the junior doctors payrise?

@jasflowers

"The only flaw in this plan is no one, Con or Labour have any intention to increase wages."

Then they don't fill the positions then.

Very few other employers have the option of offering below market salaries then squealing that they can't fill the positions so they need to import cheap labour.

And what is the consequence of unfilled care positions do you think?

I think a problem with care work in particular is it’s tied to LAs costs. And NI has already hit them and the care sector.

ETA it then impacts the NHS if places cannot be found.

@Digdongdoo

"And what is the consequence of unfilled care positions do you think?"

Poorer services. In the case of every unsatisfactory public sector service the consequences are very unhappy customers which is then reflected at the ballot box. This is no different to queues at A&E or high pupil / teacher ratios in schools.

In the case of the private sector then unhappy customers will take their business elsewhere.

Yeh that sounds about right

And what about those who can't take their business elsewhere?

Collateral damage so we all learn our lesson and vote reform probably.

Human rights lawyers often challenge the interpretation of an existing law, judges in turn may agree with the HR lawyers and interpret/apply the law in ways far beyond what was originally intended. Judges' rulings can then set precedents for future court decisions.

Or it will come down to unpaid carers and then they complain about the inactive benefit claimants.

Starmer wants this though, it’s not the pp putting forward the policy. If it comes back to bite Labour that’s due to him.

Those who care about Social Care and the NHS won't vote Reform

I don't know who the fuck we do vote for now though...