Pushed before he could jump?
Poor old Honest Bob.
Will Nige still want him now he’s soiled goods?
I can’t see him being any more loyal to Nige than he has been to Kemi
Insert popcorn gif here
Looks like the Tory takeover of Reform is gathering pace
I can’t see him being any more loyal to Nige than he has been to Kemi
Does seem an odd move for him unless Farage hinted that he wants to be the man behind the throne. I hope its just she got bored with him manoeuvring and created an excuse.
Think reform do need to try out a new phrase "reform née tories".
The Times are reporting that Kemi and Co found a copy of his big resignation speech after - to quote them - ‘he left it lying around’
Absolutely brilliant!!! 😂
Point of order: this is the "UK government" thread. Tory-Reform melodrama should be on those parties' threads.
But Farage reckons he will have a Labour defection next week. Could it be a Corbynite headbanger MP? A "Red Wall" MP on a chicken run? Or just another councillor that no-one cares about from the fictional county of Shropshire?
You're wasting your time with that one PCA. Especially given the overlap now with politics.
But Farage reckons he will have a Labour defection next week. Could it be a Corbynite headbanger MP? A "Red Wall" MP on a chicken run? Or just another councillor that no-one cares about from the fictional county of Shropshire?
Or more likely one of Labour's right wing head cases? Cos that's what Reform have been taking.
The left are more likely to go to Green if anything.
Point of order we do now have a Labour government that's effectively letting all this happen.
Kate Hoey? She’s still officially a Labour peer, isn’t she?
She’s madder than a bucket of spiders and the perfect fit for Reform
Apparently Honest Bobs big defection was going to be this afternoon. We know this because he left his ‘media schedule’ lying around with his resignation speech 😂
No word from Bob as yet. Maybe he’s considering an alternative career as a secret agent or a media planner?
Don't think she's connected to Labour. Fox hunting loon supporter.
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/2011694849469370425?s=20
pfffffft.
But Farage reckons he will have a Labour defection next week. Could it be a Corbynite headbanger MP?
A far more obvious fit would be any of the right wing loons, sorry, moderates who is a tad worried about their seat. Hmmm given reforms plans about the NHS and their liking of rejected leadership candidates maybe its Streeting.
Amusingly Farage claims it "will change the script".
Ermmm yeah because nothing says you offer a change from the two main parties than changing from recruiting from one of them to both.
Looking on a couple of more right wing inclined sites there already seems to be unease about the current set of high level tory recruits. I cant see a labour person helping out.
Zahawi was the maddest one. The only thing anyone remembers about him was that he claimed thousands of taxpayers money on expenses for heating his stables and he was sacked for tax-dodging
Given that Reform is full of anti-vaxers he was also vaccines minister.
Anyway… seeing as this is the government thread, I’m sure they’re absolutely delighted with a bun fight breaking out on the right as a welcome distraction
I don't think they ever even really defined what they meant by digital ID.
there was a reasoanble summary released- actually its still on the .gov website https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/digital-id-scheme-explainer/digital-id-scheme-explainer
but no one actually bothers to read the detail, they just jump to their favourite outrage generatng social media site to confirm their existing biases and gets along with things from there
there was a reasoanble summary released- actually its still on the .gov website
Well, I read it and I’m none the wiser.
It seems like a mix of single number for all purposes (that won’t cover all services) and a mandatory ID card (except it’s on your phone and is not mandatory unless you’re foreign but maybe not).
I’m not surprised people got upset about it. But I am glad they actually did mention stop the boats in the description for pure comedy ineptitude value.
what details would you like to know? genuine question
A far more obvious fit would be any of the right wing loons, sorry, moderates who is a tad worried about their seat.
Karl Turner, maybe? He's already talking about flouncing.
And yet another reason to be ashamed of this 'labour' government as if we needed one:
Perhaps you might like a bit of context, there is also a topical Jenrick interpolation:
https://www.owenjones.news/p/lies-over-pro-israel-mp-banned-from
what details would you like to know? genuine question
Well, I guess the first question to the government would be, did you start off with the goal of introducing a Personal Number to bring UK bureaucracy into the 21st century similar to almost every European country with a single identifier for each person which gets used for all core services and taxation in addition to things like signing any kind of contract? But then did someone say you had to include Stop the Boats somehow?
It feels like it started out as a fairly normal Personal Number implementation. Basically taking the National Insurance number and expanding it to cover the other core services such as healthcare but also allow it to be used for signing agreements. Then they decided there had to be something there to tackle illegal immigration so then the Digital ID on the phone part was added.
The important part is the unique identifier whereas the verification is secondary, with private companies generally providing the tools based on demand (normally with a variety of options to sign in). This is why putting the Digital ID on the phone part front and centre makes no sense. Unless someone has said, 'You have to tie this in with illegal immigration and Stop the Boats!'
A much more sensible way to implement this would have been to say, 'We're expanding the scope of the National Insurance number. By the way, everyone is going to be issued their National Insurance number at birth and you need a National Insurance number even if you aren't working.' and then from there you can start introducing the tools that have been available in these other countries for the past 20 years.
A Personal Number only works if it is essentially mandatory. The UK's version wouldn't have been mandatory so why even bother?
all core services and taxation in addition to things like signing any kind of contract?
What problem is this solving? Who's asking for it?
What problem is this solving? Who's asking for it?
I don't think anyone specifically asked for it. I think the infrastructure existed so someone said, 'I'm going to make an app to sign contracts' so they did and people used it and here we are.
Once you start using these kind of tools, using a pen to sign contracts feels a bit archaic and kind of silly.
But yes, I'd imagine for people in the UK who have never even heard of a Personal Number it must seem a bit daunting.
Like I said, I think the majority of European countries have some form of personal number. The tools to use it vary depending on the country but all the Nordic countries have fairly well integrated systems so if you're interested in knowing how it works I would look into how it's used in these countries.
But yes, I'd imagine for people in the UK who have never even heard of a Personal Number it must seem a bit daunting.
Great man from frozen north, he fly in giant iron bird to England. Bring with him many gift and wisdoms. Too much for little England brains. Very dauntings.
Yeah, we've got dozens of apps for signing contracts electronically. Docusign is the big one but there are loads. I just used one an hour ago online to book an event. I don't remember the last time I did an ink signature on a contract - I don't think my last mortgage or house purchase needed it, let alone anything lower value.
The "ID cards let you sign contracts" thing sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
Stop talking into the air and go and read about e-Estonia
Yeah, we've got dozens of apps for signing contracts electronically. Docusign is the big one but there are loads. I just used one an hour ago online to book an event. I don't remember the last time I did an ink signature on a contract - I don't think my last mortgage or house purchase needed it, let alone anything lower value.
OK, not being facetious here but genuinely interested.
If you don't have a national personal number, how do you identify yourself when signing digital documents?
The "ID cards let you sign contracts" thing sounds like a solution in search of a problem.
Yes, further more let's reiterate Starmer wasn't initially presenting that case. He thought it might be a way to look like he was doing something for the 'illegals are nicking our jobs.' types.
If people believe it was about convenience for the middle-class to buy houses easier - then you have been played by Labour's weathervane.
It was all about immigration, and to look like they were doing something reasonable.
It seems to me Labour will do anything apart from reshape he economy and solve proper problems - like building the same amount of houses as the Tories.
It was all about immigration, and to look like they were doing something reasonable.
I disagree.
I think it was definitely not about immigration but then immigration was shoe-horned into it. This made people suspicious because a personal number doesn't have any more to do with immigration than a National Insurance number so everyone quite rightly went, 'What are you trying to pull here!'
Introducing a Personal Number (or just expanding the scope of the National Insurance number) would have simply brought the UK into alignment with the vast majority or European countries. I don't think when you frame it in the right way it's a particularly big deal and people might have grumbled as people always do when anything changes but they would have gone along with it in the end.
By trying to tie it in with 'Stop the Boats' people quite rightly didn't know what they were being sold and reacted strongly. The Labour government managed to take a relatively simple administrative change and sold it like they were making identification tattoos mandatory.
In Spain we have digital certificates , that are used to access various administrative services.
You go the tax office and show your nie and a passport and they issue a digital certificate.
You have to carry your driving licence and all insurance ,mot (itv)and v5(permiso) in your car at all times or you can download the DGT app use your digital certificate to activate it and then you can just show your phone (there’s a barcode in the app) and carry it.
We have to show pardons, proof of your address when buying cars and various things,insurance , instead of going to the council office I can generate and print my own off.
It works well tbh, I’m just gutted that our TIE iD cards aren’t able to be put on the phone like a Spanish id card.
Not sure why it become such an issue in the U.K. but then the fear of having an iD card called that other than a driving licence or a passport which obviously aren’t although when asked for I’d 🙂
Sweden: Single ID number that is linked to all services with a digital ID for e-signing for everything from tax and GP visits to micropayments. You don't have to have the digital signing service on a mobile device, but it is a huge benefit from it for everything from internet purchases to authenticating at Skatteverket. I can use BankID to access my bank records on-line too.
As for an ID, I have a driving license that identifies me (and also contains my ID number) and a national ID card that I can use to travel around eaurope if I need to. Most places will take my driving license if they want proof of ID though, so I rarely get asked for the ID card.
Honestly, compared to what we (and places like Estonia) have, the UK's system is archaic and really open to fraud. I mean, bank statements? Really? Compared to a cryptographically secured digital ID?
Introducing a Personal Number (or just expanding the scope of the National Insurance number)
Absolutely this - we all have a number that identifies us and allows us to work in the UK.
The whole "ID card and immigration" aspect just muddied the water and set us back 5-10 years
This made people suspicious because a personal number doesn't have any more to do with immigration than a National Insurance number so everyone quite rightly went, 'What are you trying to pull here!'
Did it? I thought the issue was that you could give anyone's number and a false name and there's no way to validate you're the person in question, because the system never anticipated that. The digital ID was a simple solution and could have been neatly coupled with proper punishments for employers that skipped the checks.
My frustration with this Labour government isn't the U-turns, specifically, because I believe that decisions should be reviewed and changed if necessary. The problem as I see it is that the changes are knee-jerk and reactionary to niche groups, and with their majority they should have been brave enough to ride out the criticism with changes that ultimately benefit everyone.
Did it? I thought the issue was that you could give anyone's number and a false name and there's no way to validate you're the person in question, because the system never anticipated that. The digital ID was a simple solution and could have been neatly coupled with proper punishments for employers that skipped the checks.
Maybe. Honestly, I'm not sure what you are actually saying here but I suspect the reason for that is we have different ideas about what the government was actually trying to do with this scheme because it is not clear.
To me, it looked like they were trying to introduce a Personal Number similar to most European countries. They then decided to add some stop the boats stuff which obviously then introduced the ID on the phone stuff because your number isn't necessarily going to be on your driver's license, etc.
I've got my personal number on my driver's license and on my residence permit. Basically any form of official ID will have your personal number on it somewhere so there is no reason to own a phone to prove my number is legitimate. If I wanted to I'm pretty sure I could have something on my phone that could be used as ID but I've never needed it so I've never looked into it.
The identification part of the Digital ID (as in something you can produce to prove who you are) is one thing. The Personal Number thing is another. The government tried to present them as being the same thing and tie it all together with immigration which it obviously is tangentially related to but is very much secondary to the main purpose of a Personal Number.
Did it? I thought the issue was that you could give anyone's number and a false name and there's no way to validate you're the person in question,
This! according to a R4 programme I was listening to on ilegal working, you can get NI numbers for a tenner off the web and an NI card with it printed on for a couple of quid on ebay, the employer had fulfilled their legal obligation to check for an NI number but with no cross-checking or certainly any biometrics its meaningless, even if they are fully aware that its fake and can then get on merrily with exploiting the worker who wont dare complain
edit a quick google shows NI cards on ebay/etsy/amazon etc https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/4361570349/national-insurance-number-card?
Thats why I think the government sold this wrong, rather than disencouraging migrants it should have been about clamping down on ilegal bosses
The e-residency thing in Estonia is a masterpiece of marketing. There's nothing substantive it can do that you can't already do in the UK or most other business hubs. But they've convinced a certain number of people that it somehow gives digital nomads and tax dodgers access to the EU.
You have to carry your driving licence and all insurance ,mot (itv)and v5(permiso) in your car at all times or you can download the DGT app use your digital certificate to activate it and then you can just show your phone (there’s a barcode in the app) and carry it.
This is all completely redundant in the UK because cops (and VOSA etc) can look up the details without being shown anything.
All these "we have it in Europe" arguments are just maybe handy things that you could possibly use a personal ID number for. Except we already have a personal ID in the form of a NI number (which my health insurance provider uses as a reference number), and none of them (or even all of them together) are good reasons to spend the time and money to setting up a national ID card system.
This! according to a R4 programme I was listening to on ilegal working, you can get NI numbers for a tenner off the web and an NI card with it printed on for a couple of quid on ebay, the employer had fulfilled their legal obligation to check for an NI number but with no cross-checking or certainly any biometrics its meaningless, even if they are fully aware that its fake and can then get on merrily with exploiting the worker who wont dare complain
When you say get them for a tenner, what are you actually getting? A completely made up number? A dead person's number? A person who isn't using their number for some reason?
If the employer is only required to check that a person can produce a National Insurance number that looks like it may be correct and doesn't need to check anything about the validity of the number or that the person in front of them is the person linked to the number then I would focus on fixing that little loophole before I tried to roll out a new type of national ID.
And like I keep saying, if you want a National ID then why not just use the National Insurance number but expand the scope to cover everyone registered as living in the UK?
I think it was definitely not about immigration but then immigration was shoe-horned into it.
It is and it isn't. To be employed legally in the UK, you need to be able to demonstrate that you have residency rights. Do to that you need to go to your new employer (this only matters f you change jobs) and show him the original documents of something like a passport, residency rights paperwork, a driver licence a utility bill - an NI card isn't valid proof of anything. Your new employer has to copy them, write on the copy that they've seen the original, and file it in your HR record. The smart phone app was designed to replace all that. Give people a link, download the app, do all the work on your own smart phone, the app sends a link to your new employer. Quick easy, all sorted, no one has to remember stuff, don't need to photocopy everything. Tidy. It stops illegal immigrants from working 'cause obviously they won't have all the necessary docs. But it's pretty straightforward for most folks. You don't need to have the app on your phone if you don't need it, there's no ID card, it doesn't keep your details.
Seems now, instead of saying the App is going to be the only acceptable method of proving residency, it's now not going to be mandatory. Oh dear, what a shame, never mind
What companies/people are the illegal immigrants working for and if those companies/people are happy to employ illegal immigrants they will surely just continue to do so won't they - no digital ID, who cares come and work for me.
We are not talking about actual 'proper' companies are we.
When you say get them for a tenner, what are you actually getting? A completely made up number? A dead person's number? A person who isn't using their number for some reason?
not sure how the scam works , ill try and find the radio show, but a fish & chip shop owner was being done because the guy had provided him with a fake NI number he'd bought online
according to this bbc article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c740vjrp81po
At the moment, it is quite easy to borrow, steal or use someone else's National Insurance number and that is part of the problem in the shadow economy - but the idea is a picture would make it - in theory - harder to abuse that system.
Ive no idea why the NI number isnt able to be checked against a name etc
obviously cash in hand work you dont need an NI anyway
The e-residency thing in Estonia is a masterpiece of marketing. There's nothing substantive it can do that you can't already do in the UK or most other business hubs. But they've convinced a certain number of people that it somehow gives digital nomads and tax dodgers access to the EU.
You have to carry your driving licence and all insurance ,mot (itv)and v5(permiso) in your car at all times or you can download the DGT app use your digital certificate to activate it and then you can just show your phone (there’s a barcode in the app) and carry it.
This is all completely redundant in the UK because cops (and VOSA etc) can look up the details without being shown anything.
All these "we have it in Europe" arguments are just maybe handy things that you could possibly use a personal ID number for. Except we already have a personal ID in the form of a NI number (which my health insurance provider uses as a reference number), and none of them (or even all of them together) are good reasons to spend the time and money to setting up a national ID card system.
Other than the fact how do you prove who you are, the NI has no photographic proof, the U.K. driving licence and passport is effectively masquerading as a national iD card.
We are not talking about actual 'proper' companies are we.
It is mostly small businesses that get civil penalties applied to them: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/illegal-working-penalties-uk-report/illegal-working-civil-penalties-for-uk-employers-1-april-2025-to-30-june-2025
But is that because they're the only ones at it? Or because it's tougher to raid large employers, and that large employers have access to lawyers who can help them incriminating the employer and avoid penalties...?
https://irr.org.uk/article/sodexo-precarity-profiteering/
Or because it's tougher to raid large employers, and that large employers have access to lawyers who can help them incriminating the employer and avoid penalties...?
Lawyers don't help you, the rules are bkack and white. Large employers do tighter checks, I suspect. And these things are intelligence led.
Or because it's tougher to raid large employers, and that large employers have access to lawyers who can help them incriminating the employer and avoid penalties...?
Lawyers don't help you,
Enforcement agencies have a lot of discretion on how to resolve things: criminal, civil, undertakings, NFA. And legal advice helps a lot when the temptation is to blurt everything out and "just explain to them what happened".
the checks themselves arent that hard, but you need original documents, passport ,visa, etc you have to see originals, take copies, its not a big deal but the kind of red tape that adds up . I suspect its easier for big companies to employ someone to do this (we have administrators at my work) whereas small businesses, its probably another task the owner/manager does.
point is digital ID cuts a lot of the red tape out , it may well help with illegal working, but should have been pushed on reducing red tape and modernization and productivity
there is a major issue with digital id in that it disenfranchises further those who are already disenfranchised.
Not everyone has or can use a mobile phone.
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but if we're worried about people working illegally, just allow them to work.
Massive political difficulties for the cult of othering, but it brings in a bit of NI and tax and then you have fewer illegal employers to concentrate on (and they can't say that they were duped by forged docs)
Agreed… allow people to work legally. Especially people waiting for their asylum decision to be final. That way you stand a good chance of collecting that tax/ni revenue, and people are being productive (good for them, good for all of us). Then it’s about going after exploitative employers, without employees assisting/protecting their employers because they need to stay under the radar.
point is digital ID cuts a lot of the red tape out , it may well help with illegal working, but should have been pushed on reducing red tape and modernization and productivity
And then the government sells all the data to Meta.
both of these issues explicitly addressed in the government link i posted (and commented that no one would bother to read! )
Not everyone has or can use a mobile phone
And then the government sells all the data to Meta.
and that ship has long since sailed , companies like meta already have more data on you than the government!
Apologies if this has been mentioned, but if we're worried about people working illegally, just allow them to work.
Open borders?
Agreed… allow people to work legally. Especially people waiting for their asylum decision to be final.
Then you're creating an incentive for ineligible people to make false asylum claims. Arrive, make claim, work for a couple of years while it's being processed, send home whatever money you can in the interim, get claim rejected, maybe string it out for a couple more years (because HMG deports practically no-one)...
Asylum seekers and refugees are not the solution to any labour or skills requirements in the UK. They are less skilled, less familiar with English, less active in the labour market after settlement, and earn less than UK-born people and other immigrants alike. There are some obvious and legitimate reasons for that, but the idea that admitting refugees and (moreso) asylum seekers is solving UK labour problems as well as providing them with protection is fantasy. See figures 14 et seq:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/
More generally, the UK government has been persuaded by employers to allow massive numbers of workers into the country over the past decade in the name of keeping wages down solving the skills crisis. There is an odd alliance between yoghurt-weaving lefties and voracious capitalists that immigration needs to continue at any cost. And the result of that behaviour has been...stagnant productivity, a boom in low added-value jobs occupied by people who net don't pay tax, weak incentives for training domestic workers, a collapse in the real value of wages, massive increases in housing demand despite practically zero housing being built, and the creation of a gig economy underclass. Throwing more unskilled and semiskilled labour at these problems is not the solution.
Arrive, make claim, work for a couple of years while it's being processed,
the solution there is to process the claims quickly, remarkably it was a deliberate policy choice not to process them
your are conflating immigration with asylum seekers as well , they make up less than a tenth if immigrants
this para also has some wild claims and ignores that with an ageing population we have a huge need for 'low value' , net tax losing jobs , that you are very keen to dismiss - just look at the rolling crises and staff shortages in social care
And the result of that behaviour has been...stagnant productivity, a boom in low added-value jobs occupied by people who net don't pay tax, weak incentives for training domestic workers, a collapse in the real value of wages, massive increases in housing demand despite practically zero housing being built
all of these issues exist because of policy failings and austerity rather than immigration
and obviously a lot of this has been exacerbated by Brexit, as well as meaning we lost acces to FOM ourselves, uk industry lost acces to a flexible* labour force that helped boost productivity and the economy
a deeper dive into uks dire productivity can be found here, blaming immigrants for the failings of domestic governments is as old as time.
https://www.productivity.ac.uk/news/what-explains-the-uks-productivity-problem/
and of course your argument falls down because despite the lack of legal jobs.... the asylum seekers have not stopped coming , the numbers have increased!
Arrive, make claim, work for a couple of years while it's being processed,
the solution there is to process the claims quickly,
...
despite the lack of legal jobs.... the asylum seekers have not stopped coming , the numbers have increased!
1a) How long do you think it should take to process a claim for refugee status?
1b) Have you ever been involved in preparing or reviewing a claim for refugee status?
1c) Have you ever read a claim for refugee status?
2) The existence of other incentives to claim asylum in the UK (like, for example, avoiding death) is not a good argument for creating new incentives for people to make false claims.
we have a huge need for 'low value' , net tax losing jobs , that you are very keen to dismiss - just look at the rolling crises and staff shortages in social care
3) what's remarkable here is that unspoken assumption - the certainty - that care jobs should and must be low paid, and that the only solution is to hire more foreign labourers.
all of these issues exist because of policy failings and austerity rather than immigration...blaming immigrants for the failings of domestic governments is as old as time.
4) the government permitting mass immigration was a policy failure (among many), and exactly what I am blaming them for. I am absolutely not blaming immigrants.
the solution there is to process the claims quickly
Yup, the idea that job seekers will pretend to be asylum seekers just for a few months work and then leave… it’s really not worth the bother. Cut the wait. And stopping the few that do try it on with the system by making it illegal for all claimants to work is what enables dodgy employers to take advantage of others.
On actual migrant workers, this gov’s own impact report shows that its further tightening of “controls” will cost us billions… they are a political move not an economic one. It’s just about keeping the Brexit voters calm, not based on any analysis of benefits to the UK.
what's remarkable here is that unspoken assumption - the certainty - that care jobs should and must be low paid, and that the only solution is to hire more foreign labourers
No, the assumption is that most of those workers won’t be older workers. Same as in construction. For similar reasons. The reliance on people born abroad is based on the age profile needed for the workforce compared to the age profile of the country as a whole.
the solution there is to process the claims quickly
Yup, the idea that job seekers will pretend to be asylum seekers just for a few months work and then leave… it’s really not worth the bother. Cut the wait. And stopping the few that do try it on with the system by making it illegal for all claimants to work is what enables dodgy employers to take advantage of others.
...
the assumption is that most of those workers won’t be older workers.
1) We live in a world there are hundreds of thousands of labourers seeking to work in camps in the Middle East, 6 days a week, 15 hours a day, for £200 a month - after pating labour brokers a commission. You think it's not worth the hassle to work for £12/hour in the UK while an asylum claim is pending? And if not why do so many people do it? And why do people come to the UK to work illegally at all?
The comfortable, multi-thousand pound bike owning denizens of STW might not bother to get off their arses to work for minimum wage - there are plenty of people in the world that will!
It's never just for a few months, either. It takes 1-2 years for claims to be assessed - then it's a 60 week wait for an initial appeal - and then most unsuccessful appellants aren't deported or voluntarily returned anyway! And while those unsuccessful applicants for refugee status are in the UK, they cost the UK state about £30,000 per annum per person.
In total, there have been 148,377 asylum refusals in the last five years (2020 Q4 to 2025 Q3). For the period 2020 to 2024 there were 21,879 enforced and voluntary asylum-related returns...the reality is that even those who lose their asylum cases are likely to remain in the United Kingdom in the long term.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj41r4l0v9jo
https://www.ft.com/content/1a6cdb22-3838-47fb-aaa5-25fa534d38f7
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-uks-asylum-backlog/
2) "Cut the wait" - easy to say.
a) How long do you think it should take to process a claim for refugee status?
b) Have you ever been involved in preparing or reviewing a claim for refugee status?
c) Have you ever read a claim for refugee status?
3) Why the assumption that care workers in the UK need to be young, foreign workers paid low wages? That's a recipe for worker exploitation. The profession currently has an average age of 45. The research shows the solution is to raise skills, job satisfaction and improve conditions - not to simply replace them with foreign, younger workers.
https://www.kcl.ac.uk/action-ageism-impacts-older-workers-retention-skills-for-care
Complaining that asylum seekers cost the tax payer, while saying we have to keep the current system of not allowing them to work. That’s where anti-immigrant dogma gets us. Deny people rights at all cost, because if we make their lives a misery when they are here, they’ll wish they hadn’t come and those who are anti-immigrant will be happy about this. The “it will deter people” approach has to answer to all that other stuff you’ve posted, and, to be honest, is often just a cover used by politicans and the press for treating people badly for political gain.
Complaining that asylum seekers cost the tax payer, while saying we have to keep the current system of not allowing them to work. That’s where anti-immigrant dogma gets us.
Let's all meet up in the year 2000, Won't it be strange when we're all fully grown?
I suspect it was about then when this argument was last looked at resulting in 2002 asylum seekers being restricted from working outside of a very limited set of jobs.
The argument then was it was encouraging too many economic migrants and hence fueled anti-immigrant dogma.
It really is schrodingers immigrant. On the one hand they are living off state subsidies and on the other hand they are working cheap and so taking my job
Probably best we ignore the real threats such as the agreement with India allowing employees to be shipped over to the UK whilst not matching UK pay/tax rates for several years before being switched out since that will upset the elite benefiting from the cheap workers.
weve actually got an excellent (horrific) experiment going on at the moment, net migration to the USA has fallen off since the start of 2025
and interestingly enough the number of jobs held by native born Americans has Decreased, whilst the numbers held by non native has Increased!
that immigrants dont take jobs or drive down productivity have been known for a long time (even 'low-skilled'), what they do is help grow the pot, as ever its up to governmental policy to ensure that the benefits of that are redistributed better to society, Employers are quite happy to reap the benefits, but theyll never share the benefits unless forced (eg increasing their NI contributions!)
very good reading here- https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/repost-why-immigration-doesnt-reduce?utm_medium=email
What counts is the total amount of people competing for the same resources.
Also, too many pointless jobs and university places geared around media and finance doesn't exactly target the jobs that domestically need to be filled if we are serious about the economies needs.
For example local media college have 5000 places for media. (Maybe trimmed back a bit now). There is absolutely no way there is that sort of industry waiting for them. Media is consolidating and becoming cheaper, more badly paid. Etc.
There are problems within our country that need fixing rather than simply saying we just need more migrants to do those jobs.
What counts is the total amount of people competing for the same resources.
Also, too many pointless jobs and university places geared around media and finance doesn't exactly target the jobs that domestically need to be filled if we are serious about the economy's needs.
For example local media college have 5000 places for media. (Maybe trimmed back a bit now). There is absolutely no way there is that sort of industry waiting for them. Media is consolidating and becoming cheaper, more poorly paid, less opportunities. Etc.
There are problems within our country that need fixing rather than simply saying we just need more migrants to do those jobs.
rather than simply saying we just need more migrants to do those jobs.
good job no one is actually saying that then
What counts is the total amount of people competing for the same resources.
People are also resources. More working people can mean more resources to go around everyone.
It is a sad irony that it is retired people who are more likely to be against foreign born people working here.
Complaining that asylum seekers cost the tax payer, while saying we have to keep the current system of not allowing them to work.
I don't know if you're attempting to respond to me, but I was referring to the massive cost of people ineligible for asylum in the UK who have had their claims finally denied, and who don't still don't leave the UK.
Are you suggesting that those people should also be allowed to live and work in the UK?
Does it cost more to support failed asylum seekers or something then? Why does that figure apply for people with rejected applications but not those awaiting a decision? Or does that £30,000 figure include the costs of trying to stop those people living and working here? Or is it just a made up number with no report or analysis for us to look at, thrown out there by a Home Secretary looking to other these people to try and save the political fortunes of her party?
I could listen to Ann Pettifor for hours as she explains the the “why’s” of the economic shitshow we are in, very interesting
Public sector wages boom as private sector workers take yet another hammering
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cddgrg87ly5o
Public sector pay rises need to be ahead of private sectors pay rises as the slow process of restoring real wage levels for key public sector workers takes place, especially in the NHS and schools. I hope this is the pattern over the next 5 years (speaking as a patient, not a public sector worker).
Reform UK currently in the House, trying to table a motion (guess why...) to have a referendum on the Chagos deal.
You couldn't make this shizzle up, could you?
Public sector pay rises need to be ahead of private sectors pay rises as the slow process of restoring real wage levels for key public sector workers takes place, especially in the NHS and schools. I hope this is the pattern over the next 5 years (speaking as a patient, not a public sector worker).
I can see why they might need to rise if they've fallen behind inflation. At 7.8% they must be a good chunk of the way there now.
Can't see why they need to be ahead of private sector pay though? How do Starmer's relentless attacks on private sector workers help public sector workers at all?
Can't see why they need to be ahead of private sector pay though
To retain and employ for public purpose rather where private sector may have not delivered. (Don't forget the public sector has suffered for many years up until this recent catch up.)
Private sector wage growth is currently slowing.
Also if the private sector starts to crumble the government needs to pick up slack with jobs and wages to fend off economic downturns.
When things move again - they can move back into the private sector.
Can I politely point out that tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of public sector workers have been getting lower wage deals than nurses and teachers.
They deserve it, of course. But those less popular public servants, like the tax collectors who help provide the money for the rest, or the social workers who protect the most vulnerable are getting even further behind
Yep, all public sector employees pay increases should be linked to inflation. Anything less means the salaries are decreasing.
Reform UK currently in the House, trying to table a motion (guess why...) to have a referendum on the Chagos deal.
Will the ballot paper include a map and require the voter to indicate where this place is?
But those less popular public servants, like the tax collectors who help provide the money for the rest, or the social workers who protect the most vulnerable are getting even further behind
It's because they aren't as valuable to society as resident doctors.
As Starmer has abandoned so many of his previous pledges, it is surely now the time to kick his idiotic pledge "no customs union and no freedom of movement" pledges into the wastebin of history. Time to admit what a disaster brexit has been, and start negotiations to re-entry.
Now more than ever do we need closer ties to our neighbours, especially given how much misinformation and propaganda came from the same american platforms and financial interests in distorting the brexit vote. Along with a very public investigation to reveal that misinformation, propaganda and political finance.
Where they want to build a society of inequality, hate and fear we should do the opposite, government needs to be taking the lead in building, equality, togetherness and worth for all. We should be improving healthcare, housing, education and financial worth for everyone, building links to our neighbours instead of poverty and separation at the bequest of a now all too obvious enemy trying to destroy us.
And ****ing start by capping any political donations by any individual or organisation to 500 a year, see how long the far right last when the oligarchy money dries up.
Roll on what's left of the May elections to really give them a rocket up the arse. (A rocket that goes out probably.)
Can't see it though - they're out of ideas and constrained by the failings of neoliberalism to make any sort of difference.
Good job Trump is stealing all the bad news currently.
Pleased greens are moving from strength to strength.
Are there actually going to be elections in the UK in May?
Does it cost more to support failed asylum seekers or something then?
It costs more than what should be spent on (in your words) "failed asylum seekers", which is £0, because they have no right to be in the UK and no well-funded fear of persecution at home.
Obviously there's a cost to supporting asylum seekers and refugees, which is fair enough and just part of being a country (although reducing the amount shovelled into the accounts of shitty hotel landlords would be great).
But the reality of this "system" is practically no-one leaves the UK whatever the outcome of their asylum application, and (to bring us back to where we started) refugees and asylum seekers are not going to solve the UK's skills shortage - they are less educated, less Anglophone, less skilled and more long term benefits-reliant than both UK-born people and labour migrants - for obvious reasons.
Roll on what's left of the May elections to really give them a rocket up the arse. (A rocket that goes out probably.)
Burnham seems to be launching his leadership campaign. Reported he has now officially gone for that Denton seat.
Going to be interesting but there's many issues in the way - especially with the NEC seemingly going to make it pretty awkward.
Do you understand the chain of events that might need to happen?
I'm looking into now. Any sort of block I'd imagine will drop Labour down to single digits.
But at this point - this is an extremely interesting move.
Just clapping my hands that someone is making a play. (Even if Burnham has not previously had much form in former years - he's got a load better in the last few months and talks exactly about the politics we need.)
I don't doubt Starmer will bring something up about Putin. Exactly like he did with the Green MP that asked him about filthy rivers. He will claim this is a time not to mess with blah blah national security. Etc.
https://twitter.com/i/status/2014025671262011489
I'm looking into now. Any sort of block I'd imagine will drop Labour down to single digits.
There has been a lot of groundwork put in to try and stop it being blocked so be interesting to see what happens.
I am guessing he will get selected though at which point I feel sorry for the poor people of Denton who are going to be absolutely swamped by canvassers and press.
It was a pretty safe seat but assume Reform and Greens in particular are likely to launch aggressive campaigns. Libdems probably and then tories maybe.
Disappointed in Burnham personally, he was doing a decent job in Manchester but is prepared to chuck it away and take some huge risks personally and with his party to move h8s career forward. There's no guarantee he will win this seat, the mayor role could go to Reform and everything he's doing will tear the already fragile Labour Party apart, at a time when they need to be focused. All feels rather reminiscent of Johnsons power grab.
Even if all comes off and he ends up as PM I'm not sure it will stabilise Labours falling popularity, a more left wing PM may make the leftys happy (although he's no doubt no where near left wing enough and they are never happy anyway) but im not sure that's what voters want.