It must have been extraordinarily difficult to come up with something that would send their working class voters more into the arms of Farage than the Winter Fuel Cut but... bloody hell... they've found something.
Just wait till the public realize how many countries the UK has the same deal with !
We seem to live in an age where the public seem to be in a constant state of anger about something . It’s not healthy .
This deal could have been a positive announcement for Starmer's Labour Government today, but it was holed below the water line because the No10 Comms team's political radar and messaging is absolutely dire. Someone should have spotted the terrible optics of this mega tax break for temporary workers from India and either ditched it because of the current political landscape in the UK, or got out ahead of it and managed the announcement in such a way that the positive aspects of the deal far outweighed this tax break. But they didn't and the headlines in the media today were totally predictable as a result.
But now it just adds to the growing concensus following the Chagos deal and current briefings about future deals with the EU that Keir Starmer's Government are weak when it comes to standing up for the UK's interests during tough International/Diplomatic negotiations.
Meanwhile...
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico I think there are going to be quite a few quite embarrassed politicians when they come to understand better the provisions of the India-UK FTA that they've condemned before mastering the details.
The politicians and pundits involved are incapable of embarrassment. It's what makes them so successful.
Whether it is good for our society that, in practice, shameless is the secret sauce of getting to the top... That's another matter.
(And yes, it's true on the left as well as the right, and it's not particularly about politics. And it's not totally new, though something about electronic communications seems to make it worse.)
"The UK will lower tariffs on Indian clothes, footwear and food products. Ministers said this would give consumers access to cheaper products and more choice."
Not exactly good news for British producers of clothes, footwear and food products.
I'd like to see what crossover food we import from India has with food produced here. I don't think we have a lot of production for Indian spices or exotic fruits. In terms of clothes it's actually going to be a price cut for consumers as we already import a huge amount of clothing from India, realistically it's Bangladesh and Pakistan that lose out because now Indian imports won't have tariffs so UK supply chains will move to exclude those countries rather than the very high end producers of clothes and shoes we have here that won't be competing for the same money as Indian made imports.
This is the worst part: " it was revealed British employers will not have to pay national insurance for Indian workers for three years, making it cheaper to employ Indians than anybody else." So it will be cheaper to employ Indian workers over British ones? This is a betrayal. No other government would put their own workers at a disadvantage like this.
Our government loathe us. They absolutely despise us.They learnt nothing from REFORM gains.
Are we sure it applies to Employer's NI? If it does then yes, it's actually suicidal by Labour. I can sort of see the argument for a mutual cancelling of employee contributions but this would give Indian workers a systematic advantage of domestic ones. While in practice I don't think it will amount to much because of the income thresholds, it just sends a completely terrible message and is absolutely awful optics for the government which is already struggling with immigration.
The deal is so blatantly bad for Brits, others cannot believe it. Here is a tweet from a Pakistani
"Can't Brits go to court against this obviously discriminatory rule?"
..Under the terms of the deal, some Indian and British workers gain from a three year National Insurance exemption, which the Indian government called "an unprecedented achievement". The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and UK firms' workers transferred to India. The agreement means they will only pay social security contributions in their home country, rather than in both places. The UK already has similar "double contribution convention" agreements with 17 other countries including the EU, the US and South Korea, the government said...
I want to see more clarity on this before getting excited.
So, basically, it's nothing like some of the descriptions from the radical right trolls on social media.
I've said this before, but explaining why the bad thing was done, or saying we've done the bad thing before, does not stop it being a bad thing.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. It is not to enrich the populations of other countries. As I keep saying: they don't know how to fly the plane.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is not just to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. The government also wants to bring prosperity (in part because prosperity pays for the preserving, protecting and defending bit). Trade deals with other countries can be very good things, enriching both countries and also strengthening relationships in other positive ways.
I don't know the details of this trade deal. It may be a good or bad thing. I do know that radical right trolls, here and elsewhere, are mischaracterising it, as they lie about most things. It's the same approach Trump and the Republicans took.
I haven't criticised it.
It does show how silly politics is though. I bet if Sunak had concluded it 18 months ago you'd be attacking it, and highlighted how stupid and pointless Brexit was, whilst plenty of the others now criticising it would be defending it.
As it is, because it's been done by a Labour government, you're defending it and having a pop at radical right trolls, Trump and the Republicans.
"The UK will lower tariffs on Indian clothes, footwear and food products. Ministers said this would give consumers access to cheaper products and more choice."
Not exactly good news for British producers of clothes, footwear and food products.
I'd like to see what crossover food we import from India has with food produced here. I don't think we have a lot of production for Indian spices or exotic fruits. In terms of clothes it's actually going to be a price cut for consumers as we already import a huge amount of clothing from India, realistically it's Bangladesh and Pakistan that lose out because now Indian imports won't have tariffs so UK supply chains will move to exclude those countries rather than the very high end producers of clothes and shoes we have here that won't be competing for the same money as Indian made imports.
This is the worst part: " it was revealed British employers will not have to pay national insurance for Indian workers for three years, making it cheaper to employ Indians than anybody else." So it will be cheaper to employ Indian workers over British ones? This is a betrayal. No other government would put their own workers at a disadvantage like this.
Our government loathe us. They absolutely despise us.They learnt nothing from REFORM gains.
Are we sure it applies to Employer's NI? If it does then yes, it's actually suicidal by Labour. I can sort of see the argument for a mutual cancelling of employee contributions but this would give Indian workers a systematic advantage of domestic ones. While in practice I don't think it will amount to much because of the income thresholds, it just sends a completely terrible message and is absolutely awful optics for the government which is already struggling with immigration.
The deal is so blatantly bad for Brits, others cannot believe it. Here is a tweet from a Pakistani
"Can't Brits go to court against this obviously discriminatory rule?"
..Under the terms of the deal, some Indian and British workers gain from a three year National Insurance exemption, which the Indian government called "an unprecedented achievement". The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and UK firms' workers transferred to India. The agreement means they will only pay social security contributions in their home country, rather than in both places. The UK already has similar "double contribution convention" agreements with 17 other countries including the EU, the US and South Korea, the government said...
I want to see more clarity on this before getting excited.
So, basically, it's nothing like some of the descriptions from the radical right trolls on social media.
I've said this before, but explaining why the bad thing was done, or saying we've done the bad thing before, does not stop it being a bad thing.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. It is not to enrich the populations of other countries. As I keep saying: they don't know how to fly the plane.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is not just to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. The government also wants to bring prosperity (in part because prosperity pays for the preserving, protecting and defending bit). Trade deals with other countries can be very good things, enriching both countries and also strengthening relationships in other positive ways.
I don't know the details of this trade deal. It may be a good or bad thing. I do know that radical right trolls, here and elsewhere, are mischaracterising it, as they lie about most things. It's the same approach Trump and the Republicans took.
I haven't criticised it.
It does show how silly politics is though. I bet if Sunak had concluded it 18 months ago you'd be attacking it, and highlighted how stupid and pointless Brexit was, whilst plenty of the others now criticising it would be defending it.
As it is, because it's been done by a Labour government, you're defending it and having a pop at radical right trolls, Trump and the Republicans.
Partly that, but it also flags the tension that hasn't been resolved since 2016.
In that campaign, there were two post-Brexit visions, partly manifest in the split between Vote Leave and Leave.eu (though not perfectly.)
Crudely, one was the "uncage the butterfly"/"step out into the world". The sort of thing that respectable publications like the Spectator promoted. The sort of vision that Hannan, Jessop and Lilico had. Johnson as well, which was why he let the Boriswave happen.
The other was more "pull up the drawbridge." More... Faragey. Approximating wildly, the first was elite Brexit, the second was popular Brexit. And a lot of the contortions that have destroyed politicians since them have been trying to reconcile the two.
If you want to let the butterfly out, this is a good deal. If you want to keep the other out, it's a terrible deal. But you can't get consensus between the tiger and its rider.
Let’s make it cheaper for British firms to hire Indians than it is to hire Brits.
YES AND HO
Once again Labour missing a Peter Mannion figure to point out “no you idiot, that’s FUCKING MENTAL”
What are they thinking?
This doesn’t make it cheaper for British firms to hire Indians. The rules only apply to Indians already employed in India by an Indian firm, who then come over to the UK for a temporary period.
"The UK will lower tariffs on Indian clothes, footwear and food products. Ministers said this would give consumers access to cheaper products and more choice."
Not exactly good news for British producers of clothes, footwear and food products.
I'd like to see what crossover food we import from India has with food produced here. I don't think we have a lot of production for Indian spices or exotic fruits. In terms of clothes it's actually going to be a price cut for consumers as we already import a huge amount of clothing from India, realistically it's Bangladesh and Pakistan that lose out because now Indian imports won't have tariffs so UK supply chains will move to exclude those countries rather than the very high end producers of clothes and shoes we have here that won't be competing for the same money as Indian made imports.
This is the worst part: " it was revealed British employers will not have to pay national insurance for Indian workers for three years, making it cheaper to employ Indians than anybody else." So it will be cheaper to employ Indian workers over British ones? This is a betrayal. No other government would put their own workers at a disadvantage like this.
Our government loathe us. They absolutely despise us.They learnt nothing from REFORM gains.
Are we sure it applies to Employer's NI? If it does then yes, it's actually suicidal by Labour. I can sort of see the argument for a mutual cancelling of employee contributions but this would give Indian workers a systematic advantage of domestic ones. While in practice I don't think it will amount to much because of the income thresholds, it just sends a completely terrible message and is absolutely awful optics for the government which is already struggling with immigration.
The deal is so blatantly bad for Brits, others cannot believe it. Here is a tweet from a Pakistani
"Can't Brits go to court against this obviously discriminatory rule?"
..Under the terms of the deal, some Indian and British workers gain from a three year National Insurance exemption, which the Indian government called "an unprecedented achievement". The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and UK firms' workers transferred to India. The agreement means they will only pay social security contributions in their home country, rather than in both places. The UK already has similar "double contribution convention" agreements with 17 other countries including the EU, the US and South Korea, the government said...
I want to see more clarity on this before getting excited.
So, basically, it's nothing like some of the descriptions from the radical right trolls on social media.
I've said this before, but explaining why the bad thing was done, or saying we've done the bad thing before, does not stop it being a bad thing.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. It is not to enrich the populations of other countries. As I keep saying: they don't know how to fly the plane.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is not just to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. The government also wants to bring prosperity (in part because prosperity pays for the preserving, protecting and defending bit). Trade deals with other countries can be very good things, enriching both countries and also strengthening relationships in other positive ways.
I don't know the details of this trade deal. It may be a good or bad thing. I do know that radical right trolls, here and elsewhere, are mischaracterising it, as they lie about most things. It's the same approach Trump and the Republicans took.
I haven't criticised it.
It does show how silly politics is though. I bet if Sunak had concluded it 18 months ago you'd be attacking it, and highlighted how stupid and pointless Brexit was, whilst plenty of the others now criticising it would be defending it.
As it is, because it's been done by a Labour government, you're defending it and having a pop at radical right trolls, Trump and the Republicans.
Partly that, but it also flags the tension that hasn't been resolved since 2016.
In that campaign, there were two post-Brexit visions, partly manifest in the split between Vote Leave and Leave.eu (though not perfectly.)
Crudely, one was the "uncage the butterfly"/"step out into the world". The sort of thing that respectable publications like the Spectator promoted. The sort of vision that Hannan, Jessop and Lilico had. Johnson as well, which was why he let the Boriswave happen.
The other was more "pull up the drawbridge." More... Faragey. Approximating wildly, the first was elite Brexit, the second was popular Brexit. And a lot of the contortions that have destroyed politicians since them have been trying to reconcile the two.
If you want to let the butterfly out, this is a good deal. If you want to keep the other out, it's a terrible deal. But you can't get consensus between the tiger and its rider.
Which version (butterfly/drawbridge) in your view, is reflected by the current Conservative team? Or don't they actually know themselves.
"The UK will lower tariffs on Indian clothes, footwear and food products. Ministers said this would give consumers access to cheaper products and more choice."
Not exactly good news for British producers of clothes, footwear and food products.
I'd like to see what crossover food we import from India has with food produced here. I don't think we have a lot of production for Indian spices or exotic fruits. In terms of clothes it's actually going to be a price cut for consumers as we already import a huge amount of clothing from India, realistically it's Bangladesh and Pakistan that lose out because now Indian imports won't have tariffs so UK supply chains will move to exclude those countries rather than the very high end producers of clothes and shoes we have here that won't be competing for the same money as Indian made imports.
This is the worst part: " it was revealed British employers will not have to pay national insurance for Indian workers for three years, making it cheaper to employ Indians than anybody else." So it will be cheaper to employ Indian workers over British ones? This is a betrayal. No other government would put their own workers at a disadvantage like this.
Our government loathe us. They absolutely despise us.They learnt nothing from REFORM gains.
Are we sure it applies to Employer's NI? If it does then yes, it's actually suicidal by Labour. I can sort of see the argument for a mutual cancelling of employee contributions but this would give Indian workers a systematic advantage of domestic ones. While in practice I don't think it will amount to much because of the income thresholds, it just sends a completely terrible message and is absolutely awful optics for the government which is already struggling with immigration.
The deal is so blatantly bad for Brits, others cannot believe it. Here is a tweet from a Pakistani
"Can't Brits go to court against this obviously discriminatory rule?"
..Under the terms of the deal, some Indian and British workers gain from a three year National Insurance exemption, which the Indian government called "an unprecedented achievement". The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and UK firms' workers transferred to India. The agreement means they will only pay social security contributions in their home country, rather than in both places. The UK already has similar "double contribution convention" agreements with 17 other countries including the EU, the US and South Korea, the government said...
I want to see more clarity on this before getting excited.
So, basically, it's nothing like some of the descriptions from the radical right trolls on social media.
I've said this before, but explaining why the bad thing was done, or saying we've done the bad thing before, does not stop it being a bad thing.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. It is not to enrich the populations of other countries. As I keep saying: they don't know how to fly the plane.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is not just to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. The government also wants to bring prosperity (in part because prosperity pays for the preserving, protecting and defending bit). Trade deals with other countries can be very good things, enriching both countries and also strengthening relationships in other positive ways.
I don't know the details of this trade deal. It may be a good or bad thing. I do know that radical right trolls, here and elsewhere, are mischaracterising it, as they lie about most things. It's the same approach Trump and the Republicans took.
I haven't criticised it.
It does show how silly politics is though. I bet if Sunak had concluded it 18 months ago you'd be attacking it, and highlighted how stupid and pointless Brexit was, whilst plenty of the others now criticising it would be defending it.
As it is, because it's been done by a Labour government, you're defending it and having a pop at radical right trolls, Trump and the Republicans.
Partly that, but it also flags the tension that hasn't been resolved since 2016.
In that campaign, there were two post-Brexit visions, partly manifest in the split between Vote Leave and Leave.eu (though not perfectly.)
Crudely, one was the "uncage the butterfly"/"step out into the world". The sort of thing that respectable publications like the Spectator promoted. The sort of vision that Hannan, Jessop and Lilico had. Johnson as well, which was why he let the Boriswave happen.
The other was more "pull up the drawbridge." More... Faragey. Approximating wildly, the first was elite Brexit, the second was popular Brexit. And a lot of the contortions that have destroyed politicians since them have been trying to reconcile the two.
If you want to let the butterfly out, this is a good deal. If you want to keep the other out, it's a terrible deal. But you can't get consensus between the tiger and its rider.
Labour has a problem with loads of groups. Pensioners for starters. Their biggest problem is that the leader has no plan and the cabinet is extremely weak.
"The UK will lower tariffs on Indian clothes, footwear and food products. Ministers said this would give consumers access to cheaper products and more choice."
Not exactly good news for British producers of clothes, footwear and food products.
I'd like to see what crossover food we import from India has with food produced here. I don't think we have a lot of production for Indian spices or exotic fruits. In terms of clothes it's actually going to be a price cut for consumers as we already import a huge amount of clothing from India, realistically it's Bangladesh and Pakistan that lose out because now Indian imports won't have tariffs so UK supply chains will move to exclude those countries rather than the very high end producers of clothes and shoes we have here that won't be competing for the same money as Indian made imports.
This is the worst part: " it was revealed British employers will not have to pay national insurance for Indian workers for three years, making it cheaper to employ Indians than anybody else." So it will be cheaper to employ Indian workers over British ones? This is a betrayal. No other government would put their own workers at a disadvantage like this.
Our government loathe us. They absolutely despise us.They learnt nothing from REFORM gains.
Are we sure it applies to Employer's NI? If it does then yes, it's actually suicidal by Labour. I can sort of see the argument for a mutual cancelling of employee contributions but this would give Indian workers a systematic advantage of domestic ones. While in practice I don't think it will amount to much because of the income thresholds, it just sends a completely terrible message and is absolutely awful optics for the government which is already struggling with immigration.
The deal is so blatantly bad for Brits, others cannot believe it. Here is a tweet from a Pakistani
"Can't Brits go to court against this obviously discriminatory rule?"
..Under the terms of the deal, some Indian and British workers gain from a three year National Insurance exemption, which the Indian government called "an unprecedented achievement". The exemption applies to the staff of Indian companies temporarily transferred to the UK, and UK firms' workers transferred to India. The agreement means they will only pay social security contributions in their home country, rather than in both places. The UK already has similar "double contribution convention" agreements with 17 other countries including the EU, the US and South Korea, the government said...
I want to see more clarity on this before getting excited.
So, basically, it's nothing like some of the descriptions from the radical right trolls on social media.
I've said this before, but explaining why the bad thing was done, or saying we've done the bad thing before, does not stop it being a bad thing.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. It is not to enrich the populations of other countries. As I keep saying: they don't know how to fly the plane.
The function of the government of the United Kingdom is not just to preserve, protect and defend its people, institutions and the Crown. The government also wants to bring prosperity (in part because prosperity pays for the preserving, protecting and defending bit). Trade deals with other countries can be very good things, enriching both countries and also strengthening relationships in other positive ways.
I don't know the details of this trade deal. It may be a good or bad thing. I do know that radical right trolls, here and elsewhere, are mischaracterising it, as they lie about most things. It's the same approach Trump and the Republicans took.
I haven't criticised it.
It does show how silly politics is though. I bet if Sunak had concluded it 18 months ago you'd be attacking it, and highlighted how stupid and pointless Brexit was, whilst plenty of the others now criticising it would be defending it.
As it is, because it's been done by a Labour government, you're defending it and having a pop at radical right trolls, Trump and the Republicans.
Partly that, but it also flags the tension that hasn't been resolved since 2016.
In that campaign, there were two post-Brexit visions, partly manifest in the split between Vote Leave and Leave.eu (though not perfectly.)
Crudely, one was the "uncage the butterfly"/"step out into the world". The sort of thing that respectable publications like the Spectator promoted. The sort of vision that Hannan, Jessop and Lilico had. Johnson as well, which was why he let the Boriswave happen.
The other was more "pull up the drawbridge." More... Faragey. Approximating wildly, the first was elite Brexit, the second was popular Brexit. And a lot of the contortions that have destroyed politicians since them have been trying to reconcile the two.
If you want to let the butterfly out, this is a good deal. If you want to keep the other out, it's a terrible deal. But you can't get consensus between the tiger and its rider.
Which version (butterfly/drawbridge) in your view, is reflected by the current Conservative team? Or don't they actually know themselves.
Good question. Suspect that they are mostly butterflies at heart, but get drawn to drawbridges by the practical politics. That's where the votes are, and they are understandably terrified of Farage.
Let’s make it cheaper for British firms to hire Indians than it is to hire Brits.
YES AND HO
Once again Labour missing a Peter Mannion figure to point out “no you idiot, that’s FUCKING MENTAL”
What are they thinking?
This doesn’t make it cheaper for British firms to hire Indians. The rules only apply to Indians already employed in India by an Indian firm, who then come over to the UK for a temporary period.
Yes I believe that is the spin. But the Indian firms are British firms in the UK. Registered here. Subject to laws and taxes here. Hiring and firing here.
Transferring in staff from their parent / owning company at a cheaper rate than hiring locally is precisely what I said it was.
Given the reluctance of this government in terms of youth mobility with the EU I can’t see them having agreed to this India deal without a cap on how many temporary workers can come to the UK .
Regardless Starmer had better make sure he has answers to what I expect will be a barrage of questions in today’s PMQs .
The vast majority of the public have no idea that these types of double contribution conventions are quite common between countries .
Once again Labour comms have been woeful. And we saw the same with the WFA .
It was obvious the Indian government would highlight what it perceives as its “ big wins “ in the deal .
Comments
The politicians and pundits involved are incapable of embarrassment. It's what makes them so successful.
Whether it is good for our society that, in practice, shameless is the secret sauce of getting to the top... That's another matter.
(And yes, it's true on the left as well as the right, and it's not particularly about politics. And it's not totally new, though something about electronic communications seems to make it worse.)
What’s interesting is how little the market rose on this news. Already pretty much priced in.
It does show how silly politics is though. I bet if Sunak had concluded it 18 months ago you'd be attacking it, and highlighted how stupid and pointless Brexit was, whilst plenty of the others now criticising it would be defending it.
As it is, because it's been done by a Labour government, you're defending it and having a pop at radical right trolls, Trump and the Republicans.
It seems Louise Haigh, who has no reason to criticise the leadership, thinks so.
https://x.com/vicderbyshire/status/1919887192911949959?s=61
In that campaign, there were two post-Brexit visions, partly manifest in the split between Vote Leave and Leave.eu (though not perfectly.)
Crudely, one was the "uncage the butterfly"/"step out into the world". The sort of thing that respectable publications like the Spectator promoted. The sort of vision that Hannan, Jessop and Lilico had. Johnson as well, which was why he let the Boriswave happen.
The other was more "pull up the drawbridge." More... Faragey. Approximating wildly, the first was elite Brexit, the second was popular Brexit. And a lot of the contortions that have destroyed politicians since them have been trying to reconcile the two.
If you want to let the butterfly out, this is a good deal. If you want to keep the other out, it's a terrible deal. But you can't get consensus between the tiger and its rider.
https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1919995617025171491?t=hfRhAfJDY49TtwJpDFbNVA&s=19
Transferring in staff from their parent / owning company at a cheaper rate than hiring locally is precisely what I said it was.
NEW THREAD
Regardless Starmer had better make sure he has answers to what I expect will be a barrage of questions in today’s PMQs .
The vast majority of the public have no idea that these types of double contribution conventions are quite common between countries .
Once again Labour comms have been woeful. And we saw the same with the WFA .
It was obvious the Indian government would highlight what it perceives as its “ big wins “ in the deal .
Did no one in no 10 anticipate this ?