On immigration, Nigel Farage says the visa minimum salary is too low and should be much higher. This would destroy all lower wage work including farming, restaurants etc.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
If I understand correctly, the latest Raynergate scandal is that she allegedly broke electoral law by registering at the wrong address.
Instead of registering at her true address in Stockport, she instead was registered at her other address in Stockport. Thus falsely getting her a vote in Stockport instead of the constituency she should have voted in which was Stockport.
High crimes and misdemeanours indeed. Thank god the Tories - who are free from sin - are doing the public a favour by going after this one.
It’s time barred by a decade and it’s literally she used address 1 in the constituency rather than address 2 in the same constituency.
It’s about as none story as possible because our current MP didn’t even publish his address when he stood last time round (you can opt just to say if you live I the constituency or not).
Good job too as it tied him to a law firm that had recently gone / went bankrupt.
Serious question- are the Tories bonkers? They have been caught with the fingers in the till. Vast amounts of public money corruptly embezzled Gongs sold for cash. And they think there are votes in going after Rayner? For this?
I think what they are doing makes sense (in terms of winning an election, which they won't), although it is far from moral:
a) Put in people's minds that all politicians are all as bad as one another b) Get this story in the media so as to squeeze out any other stories. All the voters hear about are dodgy Labour and nothing else.
Most voters are neither reading the details nor following politics on social media. It is all background stuff that works.
I'm not sure they are thinking it through to that extent Those with an agenda against Rayner including the Conservative Party and allied media see a target so go in for the attack.
However I am much more interested in the honeytrap story, which is much more widespread and organised than just William Wragg, and which certain parts of the media have very limited interest in investigating for some reason. Maybe it's your point (b).
It would of course be concerning if a foreign security service was successfully sexting lots of MPs, but seemingly this isn't the case. So who is behind this and why? That's perhaps even more worrying.
I agree. The successful blackmailing of an MP is very serious in my mind and in particular the blackmailer(s) weren't actually after money either, but to get private contact details of other MPs, which implies it is more widespread and that the motives were far greater.
There are a few comparisons with Profumo. Although not as senior, it is more widespread (so who knows) and not obviously a foreign government (yet).
It’s such a weird story, and there’s no obvious motive. It could be anyone from a comedian to a foreign state actor, but most likely some disgruntled former Westmentster insider, a former staffer or or junior hack playing games.
Is there any evidence it was actual blackmail ?
I haven't seen any.
Wragg has said he was 'manipulated' into providing other MPs contact details, but that's not blackmail; it's likely not criminal at all.
Sending unsolicited pictures might be an offence, of course.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Question is- did it? Was there a meaningful number of young Britons wanting to do these jobs for higher pay? I'm not convinced that there were.
So- a very plausible outcome here is that hospitality businesses close and prices go up at the survivors. There isn't a bonanza for British potential wait staff, and life is less pleasant and more expensive for people who enjoy eating out.
The bit of that Stuart Rose gotcha that's often forgotten- increasing wages aren't necessarily a good thing- is partly because we're also the ones who end up paying them, in the form of higher prices. Which is roughly what's happened.
On immigration, Nigel Farage says the visa minimum salary is too low and should be much higher. This would destroy all lower wage work including farming, restaurants etc.
It’s an odd philosophy: let our own people do the crap paid jobs and bring in foreigners to take the skilled lucrative opportunities. Other countries with very tightly controlled immigration take the opposite approach.
Is there actually any evidence that Brexit has done much for the lower end of the jobs market? I mean it was sold as weaning us off Romanians and so on but I can't see any evidence much has really changed?
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
Also true! I think I’d go with a FOM style policy for u23s. They don’t need school places, houses, much from doctors etc and they don’t displace the main breadwinner from poor families. It’s the youngsters who provide the lively, cosmopolitan environment that is a selling point of immigration
That is an extraordinary article and one the author would never have written without implicit backing from some very senior people in the Chinese government.
I'm not sure - he's been writing on similar lines for two years now:
It doesn't seem to be true that the Chinese (and indeed the Russian) autocracy dictate every article and media commentary by every individual. We intermittently hear of people on Russian TV going off piste and not always being punished for it. Instead, both countries seem to practice what one might call "unpredictable autocracy" - you can stick your neck out and there is a fair chance you'll be tolerated, but you *might* be arrested or even killed. That allows something of a discussion rather than a total clampdown (as in Stalin's Russia or current Afghanistan), but at a hard-to-judge risk for the participants, who have to be either very brave or very well-connected.
At all events, Feng - who is a professor in Russian studies - seems to have been given licence to question the Chinese-Russian relationship for a long time now, without obvious effects on actual policy.
On immigration, Nigel Farage says the visa minimum salary is too low and should be much higher. This would destroy all lower wage work including farming, restaurants etc.
It’s an odd philosophy: let our own people do the crap paid jobs and bring in foreigners to take the skilled lucrative opportunities. Other countries with very tightly controlled immigration take the opposite approach.
It also ignores the importance of the jobs. Just because they're low paying doesn't mean they aren't vital.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
Also true! I think I’d go with a FOM style policy for u23s. They don’t need school places, houses, much from doctors etc and they don’t displace the main breadwinner from poor families. It’s the youngsters who provide the lively, cosmopolitan environment that is a selling point of immigration
The issue is how to make it reciprocal. We want our under 23s (or 25s or whatever) able to live and work across Europe too. So ideally something like this would be negotiated bilaterally rather than just implemented unilaterally.
That is an extraordinary article and one the author would never have written without implicit backing from some very senior people in the Chinese government.
I'm not sure - he's been writing on similar lines for two years now:
It doesn't seem to be true that the Chinese (and indeed the Russian) autocracy dictate every article and media commentary by every individual. We intermittently hear of people on Russian TV going off piste and not always being punished for it. Instead, both countries seem to practice what one might call "unpredictable autocracy" - you can stick your neck out and there is a fair chance you'll be tolerated, but you *might* be arrested or even killed. That allows something of a discussion rather than a total clampdown (as in Stalin's Russia or current Afghanistan), but at a hard-to-judge risk for the participants, who have to be either very brave or very well-connected.
At all events, Feng - who is a professor in Russian studies - seems to have been given licence to question the Chinese-Russian relationship for a long time now, without obvious effects on actual policy.
And if this is reviewed and approved by the CCP before publication it’s a useful way of keeping the junior partner in the relationship on its toes.
That is an extraordinary article and one the author would never have written without implicit backing from some very senior people in the Chinese government.
I'm not sure - he's been writing on similar lines for two years now:
It doesn't seem to be true that the Chinese (and indeed the Russian) autocracy dictate every article and media commentary by every individual. We intermittently hear of people on Russian TV going off piste and not always being punished for it. Instead, both countries seem to practice what one might call "unpredictable autocracy" - you can stick your neck out and there is a fair chance you'll be tolerated, but you *might* be arrested or even killed. That allows something of a discussion rather than a total clampdown (as in Stalin's Russia or current Afghanistan), but at a hard-to-judge risk for the participants, who have to be either very brave or very well-connected.
At all events, Feng - who is a professor in Russian studies - seems to have been given licence to question the Chinese-Russian relationship for a long time now, without obvious effects on actual policy.
I notice this article was tied in with a forum on Europe China relations. So I think European decision makers are one intended audience. Saying in effect the overall European relationship is more important than the Russian one. I'm not sure it actually is but that's the message Feng wants to convey.
The other audience is the domestic one. Outsiders often think China has a monolithic government but actually there can be debate behind the scenes. In this case on how China conducts its foreign policy where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is largely composed of pragmatists, while the Defence/Party establishment is perhaps more gung ho. In a constrained economic environment and where the Russian adventure is not playing out to China's advantage, I suspect the pragmatists think they have a bit more space now.
On immigration, Nigel Farage says the visa minimum salary is too low and should be much higher. This would destroy all lower wage work including farming, restaurants etc.
It’s an odd philosophy: let our own people do the crap paid jobs and bring in foreigners to take the skilled lucrative opportunities. Other countries with very tightly controlled immigration take the opposite approach.
It's not so strange. He just doesn't like foreigners coming here, unless they're rich.
On immigration, Nigel Farage says the visa minimum salary is too low and should be much higher. This would destroy all lower wage work including farming, restaurants etc.
If enforced.
It was literally spelt out, during COVID, that minimum wage and parts of the Factory Acts were not being enforced in factories around Leicester, for example.
Is there actually any evidence that Brexit has done much for the lower end of the jobs market? I mean it was sold as weaning us off Romanians and so on but I can't see any evidence much has really changed?
At least aim for a shred of coherence - a couple of posts up you take the piss out of the suggestion that lower paid migrants should not be given visas; in this post you suggest that not enough has been done to improve the prospects of Britons at the low end of the salary scale.
Is there actually any evidence that Brexit has done much for the lower end of the jobs market? I mean it was sold as weaning us off Romanians and so on but I can't see any evidence much has really changed?
At least aim for a shred of coherence - a couple of posts up you take the piss out of the suggestion that lower paid migrants should not be given visas; in this post you suggest that not enough has been done to improve the prospects of Britons at the low end of the salary scale.
Perhaps what you seek to interpret as a lack of "coherence" is just a refusal to accept the time-honoured xenophobic dog whistle message about "foreigners coming here and stealing our jobs".
Given that that's just a bit of right-wing anti-immigration claptrap, it would hardly be surprising if Brexit had done nothing to improve the UK jobs market - or if Farage's tripe showed him up as just a xenophobic snob.
If you read the article it has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit
It’s the government policy on the minimum salary you have to earn to get a visa plus the cost of living.
So valid concerns but just to say “because Brexit” makes it much harder to address the causes of the issue
Er, without Brexit the Italian waiters wouldn't need visas!
You are looking at the proximate issue not the underlying cause
Given the prices London restaurants charge they should be able to pay a decent wage. Or they can find employees from the local population and/or the settled Italian community if they insist.
But your solution is unlimited immigration rather than improving wages for the local population.
I get it. I understand why you might like that. I also understand why the local population might not.
(Now there is a specific topic on wait staff where the UK culture sees it as a transitory job while many European cultures see it as a career. But that should be reflected in wages restaurants are prepared to pay).
80% of restaurants fail within the first 5 years. Higher wages probably would work at the top end of the market with better retention improving service, but for the middle and lower end of the market margins seem too tight. That the prices seem high to customers doesn't mean owners can just pay a lot more.
Also, the implicit deal used to be "Young Europeans- come and work in the UK for a bit. The pay won't be great, but there's minimal admin, you can improve your English, which will pay off well for you in the future. And it's a fun place to pass through." See also au pair-ing.
The recompense for the job wasn't just the cash, it was the experience. It's not as if young Brits wanted to do the work.
We've chucked that away, because of an obsession with control and total numbers of bodies. Brexit didn't have to be like this (and doesn't now.) But it was always a plausible outcome, especially after the campaign of 2016.
I doubt many people would mind there being an exemption on FOM for under 21s, or maybe under 23s. They’re equivalent to students really. I think problem people had, which led to Leave winning, was immigrants undercutting the market on jobs that grown men were used to supporting their families by. I suppose it is hard to replicate implicit deals in practice
But the reality is that a bunch of young Europeans doing poorly paid jobs for "the experience" is what enables those jobs to be poorly paid in the first place. It supplies a massive excess of labour supply which sinks pay and conditions. That had knock on effects for less skilled Britons.
Yes I suppose so.
But they didn’t want the waiting jobs before or after.
They didn’t want them AT THE WAGES THE EMPLOYERS WERE OFFERING
Don’t shout at me please. Uncivilised. I take your point, but as others have pointed out, that’s what the employers can afford. Now that suggests to me a gross imbalance in the system; quality catering isn’t something which we should expect to have outside a few establishments in the centre of great cities. Sad. How do we sort that?
Off topic - at every point of the income scale, people in England live longer than people in the US. I would not have thought that at the top end. The gap at the bottom is truly remarkable.
So what do we think? Will Israel hit back - will we see direct Israeli attacks on Iran?
Pros
1. Emotionally satisfying 2. Electorally popular 3. Chance to take out Iranian nuclear programme? 4. Deter others 5. America might support it as it stalls Iranian help to Putin
Cons: 1. Might go wrong, miss targets, electorally unpopular 2. Obvious risk of massive escalation with Iran 3. Might provoke Hezbollah into all out attack 4. Could end up killing everyone on earth 5. America will probably try and stop it; bad for Biden in election year
That’s finely balanced. I reckon it’s 52/48 Israel restrains itself. Maybe takes on Iranian proxies
We probably need Bart’s nuanced take on it.
Israel should enforce regime change upon Iran and destroy all nuclear facilities.
On immigration, Nigel Farage says the visa minimum salary is too low and should be much higher. This would destroy all lower wage work including farming, restaurants etc.
Why can't those lower wage employers pay a living wage that attracts people to apply for the job?
That's supply and demand in action, and surely what you should want to?
Comments
I haven't seen any.
Wragg has said he was 'manipulated' into providing other MPs contact details, but that's not blackmail; it's likely not criminal at all.
Sending unsolicited pictures might be an offence, of course.
So- a very plausible outcome here is that hospitality businesses close and prices go up at the survivors. There isn't a bonanza for British potential wait staff, and life is less pleasant and more expensive for people who enjoy eating out.
The bit of that Stuart Rose gotcha that's often forgotten- increasing wages aren't necessarily a good thing- is partly because we're also the ones who end up paying them, in the form of higher prices. Which is roughly what's happened.
https://interpret.csis.org/original_author/feng-yujun/
It doesn't seem to be true that the Chinese (and indeed the Russian) autocracy dictate every article and media commentary by every individual. We intermittently hear of people on Russian TV going off piste and not always being punished for it. Instead, both countries seem to practice what one might call "unpredictable autocracy" - you can stick your neck out and there is a fair chance you'll be tolerated, but you *might* be arrested or even killed. That allows something of a discussion rather than a total clampdown (as in Stalin's Russia or current Afghanistan), but at a hard-to-judge risk for the participants, who have to be either very brave or very well-connected.
At all events, Feng - who is a professor in Russian studies - seems to have been given licence to question the Chinese-Russian relationship for a long time now, without obvious effects on actual policy.
Under FPTP Labour are going to get 80% of the representation with 47% of the vote. So why are the Tories not bringing in PR?
I mean if your choice is huge Labour majority or about 47% Labour, why choose to lose everything?
I don’t agree with the Tories about much (anything) but their supporters deserve a proportional voice.
The other audience is the domestic one. Outsiders often think China has a monolithic government but actually there can be debate behind the scenes. In this case on how China conducts its foreign policy where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is largely composed of pragmatists, while the Defence/Party establishment is perhaps more gung ho. In a constrained economic environment and where the Russian adventure is not playing out to China's advantage, I suspect the pragmatists think they have a bit more space now.
It was literally spelt out, during COVID, that minimum wage and parts of the Factory Acts were not being enforced in factories around Leicester, for example.
Given that that's just a bit of right-wing anti-immigration claptrap, it would hardly be surprising if Brexit had done nothing to improve the UK jobs market - or if Farage's tripe showed him up as just a xenophobic snob.
I take your point, but as others have pointed out, that’s what the employers can afford. Now that suggests to me a gross imbalance in the system; quality catering isn’t something which we should expect to have outside a few establishments in the centre of great cities.
Sad.
How do we sort that?
That's supply and demand in action, and surely what you should want to?