Forum menu
This is all so painful.
She's not doing a thing that will improve government spending - they've not had the economic brains for that.
She's only interested in making it appear like her spreadsheet balances.
Your services will likely not get better, the economy will likely degrade and worst of all she chasing a moving target as nothing stays the same and she won't reach her aims - which even if she does - would deliver poor outcomes for us.
Balanced government budgets are structurally nonsensical and bad for growth, public purpose and investment.
Further to that balanced budgets are in essence recession inducing for the simple reason you drain money out of the economy.
In addition to all this, and back to basics - taxes never find spending. We are dealing with the illogical and irrational.
But that is Labour - performative and inadequate.
40% threshold would be at about 64k.
Kelvin think of it this way, if the thresholds hadn't been frozen in 2021 then anyone who was at the top end of the 20% rate in 2021 is probably now paying around 3k more in tax per year than they were then. That's a lot of money being extracted from a lot of people who in no way can be described as rich. You think that's ok when millionaire asset holders haven't seen any appreciable tax increases in that time? And we wonder why people are flocking to Reform. 🙄
Also - this may sound like it's come from a tory MP - but there is a material negative impact on the wider economy of having such a low high tax threshold. What's the point in working hard to get pay rises if you're only going to receive 50% (with NI added on) of the increase? What's the point in doing more difficult/stressful jobs if you're not going to be much better off? There's a reason there are so many retired doctors out there. Won't be long before we have lots of non-working teachers, social workers, paramedics, police officers etc. Who's going to do these jobs instead?
I understand how fiscal drag works, thank you anyway. And I agree thresholds should be increased (but they probably won't be anytime soon). I just want to call out this "just target the top 1%", "the top 10% are hard pressed" attitude. Both should be paying more. I very much doubt tax rate increases are coming to pay packets any time soon anyway. Raising taxes on capital, property, dividends or pension pots much more likely.
I very much doubt tax rate increases are coming to pay packets any time soon anyway.
You don't think fiscal drag is a tax increase?
And yes I know you know what fiscal drag is, but you don't seem to appear to understand or care about the impact. 3k a year more on tax is a significant hit for someone who was earning 50k in 2021 however much you think they're rich (they're not!).
Great news that the UK is on track to be one of the fastest growing major economies according to the IMF. Can't really ask for more than that unless you're from the "unlimited magic beans" school of economics.
As for A-level English, it's not A-level English it's A-level equivalent, more specifically the CEFR B2. The current standard is B1, equivalent to GCSE, so it's a step up, but not a massive one. You can find sample B2 tests online, native speakers will likely find them very easy.
Great news that the UK is on track to be one of the fastest growing major economies according to the IMF.
It's only great news if that growth benefits the population at large. Reeves has said she'll be cutting funding for public services in the next budget alongside tax rises so a double whammy despite being 'one of the fastes growing economies'. So where is the money going? (don't answer that, we all know where it's going)
earning 50k in 2021 however much you think they're rich (they're not!).
Living in a house where one of us is the other side of £50k for wages I can confirm that it made the household feel significantly richer, fiscal drag or no. Yes we can't go mad with spending but we don't have to be so careful if something breaks and needs replacing. For transparency the mortgage is paid-off, we're both the last of the Boomer generation and we could afford a tax rise. Those who are mortgaged to the hilt in the South East may not feel quite so comfortable on the same money. (Nuance again, I'll be asked to leave).
Great news that the UK is on track to be one of the fastest growing major economies according to the IMF. Can't really ask for more than that unless you're from the "unlimited magic beans" school of economics.
The fastest growing economy in the G7 was a pledge Labour made at the same time that were saying to everyone that the UK economy was totally screwed after 14 years of Tory rule and how it would take many years to recover from.
Confused? Yeah me too, apparently the economy is in great shape again after a few months thanks to Labour. Or perhaps it isn't?
What they didn't pledge though was the highest inflation rate of any G7 country
But don't tell me, let me figure this one out.....the highest growth rate in G7 is all down to Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, and the highest inflation rate in G7 has nothing to do with them. Am I right?
You can find sample B2 tests online, native speakers will likely find them very easy.
I think you might have somehow missed the fact that this "very easy" test isn't for native speakers, it is for immigrants who aren't native speakers. And for them, according to the government, it will be "tough" not very easy.
From the government's own website :
Migrants will be required to pass tough new English language requirements under a law introduced in Parliament today (14 October), as the government continues to replace Britain’s failed immigration system with one that is controlled, selective and fair.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/migrants-will-be-required-to-pass-a-level-standard-of-english
My dad first arrived to the UK at the age of 24 as a non-English speaker. He of course learnt to speak English very quickly however his English grammar remained really quite poor throughout his life, as is often the case with foreigners. It was however perfectly adequate for his needs as a UK resident.
Being as news obsessed as I am he read broadsheets from cover to cover and as a child I would sometimes ask him the meanings of words, and he certainly didn't speak in double negatives, but his grammar was quite shite. It certainly wasn't up to GCSE standard.
But don't tell me, let me figure this one out.....the highest growth rate in G7 is all down to Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, and the highest inflation rate in G7 has nothing to do with them. Am I right?
It's not our fault (again!)... 😭😭
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/oct/15/rachel-reeves-brexit-impact-tax-and-spending-budget
Living in a house where one of us is the other side of £50k for wages I can confirm that it made the household feel significantly richer
I'm not in any way claiming a household with a 50k+ earner is poor or even normal, but it's not as well-off as many assume. Over the past 4 years that 50k earner (assuming average wage growth in that time) is paying approx 3k more in tax than they would be if the threshold had tracked inflation. I wouldn't be bothered if public services were improving and Labour were addressing the inequality problem, but they're not. Instead they're preoccupied with filling financial 'black holes' and keeping the bond market happy.
Two years of studying a language which you have spent talking every day for fifteen plus years?
Yep. And an entry requirement of a good GCSE grade.
That was then and now is now, Ernie. The government has decided on a profile of immigrant that's welcome in the current context. We're not talking refugees here, we're talking about economic migrants like me, your father (and you). If the government is going to have criteria rather than open the doors to anyone that's fine by me. However, IMO language skills aren't the best way to shut people out because the UK doesn't need linguists, it's needs medics, scientists, engineers, IT specialists, business people... rather than someone who's studied English at the Sorbonne. I think the Australian and Canadian approach of a list of professions is a better approach if the objective is boosting the economy.
If you need fruit pickers and agricultural labour then have a scheme like Australia where a visa is given on the condition that the recipient has to do whatever job is offered for six months (think mining or agricultural labour) to get a two-year stay IIRC.
Sure have a language test, but set the difficulty at a level it won't exclude the people the country needs most. I'll wait until I've seen an example of the test before approving or condemning the requirement.
That was then and now is now, Ernie. The government has decided on a profile of immigrant that's welcome in the current context. We're not talking refugees here, we're talking about economic migrants like me, your father (and you).
Yes I know that was then and now is now. Nothing has changed though with regards to foreigners who learn English as adults though. They can learn English to live perfectly adequately as residents in the UK even if their English grammar remains poor and below A-level standard. That has been the case for hundreds of years, it hasn't changed with time.
As an example my dad always seemed to think that "womens" was the plural of "woman", well you just add an "S" if there's more than one, don't you? It was very obviously a grammar failure even by GCSE standards never mind A-level standards, I don't however ever recall anyone saying "I'm sorry I haven't got a clue what you are talking about". Everyone understood his grammatically incorrect English just fine. And that would still be the case today.
And my father was most certainly not an economic migrant, nor a refugee. Nor was I as you suggest. In fact my dad was the complete opposite of a refugee, he first came to the UK to fight in a war against fascism leaving behind a perfectly safe country. And in my case I first came to the UK because my parents didn't like the Idea of leaving their six year old son in South America. There's no economic migrants or refugees in my family.
English must be a nightmare to learn as a second language. It's such a mish mash of other languages.
That said I still can't get my head around masculine and feminine in other languages when it comes to inanimate objects... How can a table be a boy and a lamp be a girl? Madness lol
I once asked for polla at a Spanish bar instead of Pollo..
So I basically said to them I want to eat some dick, rather than chicken.
So that was hilarious for everyone within earshot, hahaha!
Wait until you try learning Swedish and the 'en' and 'ett' classification for words. There is no rule´, you just have to know. Or learn.
As a side note, I have been learning Swedish since 2017, living here since 2018, speaking it at work since 2020 and I am in no way even close to being the equivalent of A level in it. Yes, I can discuss CIS controls and ISO27k1 and explain cybersecurity and skydiving to people in Swedish, but that's about it. I can't really discuss literature, or the finer points of politics, or explain medical symptoms.
A table is both a boy (German) and girl (French)
I still can't get my head around masculine and feminine in other languages
Don't worry, nor can the native speakers. Even TV presenters often make errors.
I still have trouble with le Queen Elizabeth II. Boats should be female, especially when they are queens.
It is Not easy to pass if the language test is set at A-level standard or equivalent. Unless, they make an effort to actively learn or try to learn, it will be very challenging. I find it rather hard to live in a country where I am cut off from the language. Hence, I am stuck with the only option of working and living in English speaking countries only. America - No. I rather stay at home.
Most native English speakers I know would fail miserably at English language A level.
It's kinda preposterous when you think about it.
Coffee tables... Both transexual and gender neutral at the same time.
Heheheh
I think the Australian and Canadian approach of a list of professions is a better approach if the objective is boosting the economy.
I don't want to be too provocative but surely as someone with such strong and lengthy opinions on the subject you're aware that that is exactly what already happens in the UK...?
You can find sample B2 tests online, native speakers will likely find them very easy.
I think you might have somehow missed the fact that this "very easy" test isn't for native speakers, it is for immigrants who aren't native speakers. And for them, according to the government, it will be "tough" not very easy.
Don't be silly, of course I haven't missed that. It was a response to people saying things like "most native Brits couldn't pass A-level English", as if to imply the expected standard is too high. But the requirement is actually the B2 exam, not A-level English. Native speakers would would find the B2 tests very easy and none of my non-native friends or coworkers would struggle with it at all. I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation.
as if to imply the expected standard is too high.
Which seems a reasonable conclusion to me. Why is the standard of existing English test insufficient? Why force foreign speakers to speak and understand English at a level which the government describes as "tough"?
The government on their own website directly link the "tough" new English test with what they call a "failed immigration system". You would need to be particularly naive not to see that they are attempting to out-farage Nigel Farage. It is obvious that they want to be perceived as being tough on foreigners and that is the driving motive rather than a problem with the standard of the previous English test being insufficiently low.
You want us to believe that the new English test is easy and the government wants us to believe that it is tough, I can understand why the government wants to believe it is tough but I don't understand why you want us to believe it is easy.
Thank you for the list, Politecameraaction. If you read throug you'll find it confirms the criticism I made - it's not related to the needs of the British economy. It's just a classification of jobs on level of skill and then makes the low skilled jobs inilegible. It strikes me that some of the inelegible jobs have being suffering growth handicapping shortages for years 8151 - 8159 for example - exactly the type of jobs that Australia has young people doing for six months. Britain doesn't need librarians but it does need construction workers.
| 8151 | Scaffolders, stagers and riggers | Engineering construction riggers Scaffolders and stagers Scaffolders, stagers and riggers not elsewhere classified. |
Ineligible |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8152 | Road construction operatives | Road construction operatives | Ineligible |
| 8153 | Rail construction and maintenance operatives | Rail construction and maintenance operatives | Ineligible |
| 8159 | Construction operatives not elsewhere classified. | Asbestos removers Blind fitters Building maintenance operatives Cable layers Ceiling fitters Demolition operatives Drainage operatives Insulation engineers Pipe layers (excludes pipe fitters) Sign fitters (excludes electrical fitters) Construction operatives not elsewhere classified. |
Ineligible |
as if to imply the expected standard is too high.
Which seems a reasonable conclusion to me. Why is the standard of existing English test insufficient? Why force foreign speakers to speak and understand English at a level which the government describes as "tough"?
The government on their own website directly link the "tough" new English test with what they call a "failed immigration system". You would need to be particularly naive not to see that they are attempting to out-farage Nigel Farage. It is obvious that they want to be perceived as being tough on foreigners and that is the driving motive rather than a problem with the standard of the previous English test being insufficiently low.
You want us to believe that the new English test is easy and the government wants us to believe that it is tough, I can understand why the government wants to believe it is tough but I don't understand why you want us to believe it is easy.
Easy for native speakers is what I said actually. I didn't say it would be easy for non-native speakers. Although I expect anyone who is serious about wanting to build a life and career here will have already been working on their English language skills and won't find it particularly difficult.
As an example, many universities also require B2 as part of their entry requirements. Evidently there are a great many 18-year-old non-native speakers who manage to pass the test without ever having lived in an English speaking country.
A non-native family member did the B1 a couple of years back and - with minimal formal English study but after several years living in the UK - didn't even bother revising, it was that easy. The B2 is slightly harder but not massively so, there are further levels above that before you get to fluency.
I don't care much for the government rhetoric. It's pretty obvious that they see some electoral value in the "tough on immigration" position. I'm not convinced, agree that trying to out-Farage Farage seems like a fools errand, but then I don't have access to the data they do, and I live in hope that it's part of a well thought-out long term strategy.
Great news that the UK is on track to be one of the fastest growing major economies according to the IMF.
Seems like the IMF's forecasters are about as reliable as the OBR. Honestly, what is the actual point of all these growth forecasts if they're always so wildly inaccurate and more importantly why are we using them to set economic and fiscal policy? The 'profession' of economics is a fraud, and yet we treat economists like all-knowing gods and bow to their every word. It's nonsense.
While I don't agree that professional economists are frauds economic forecasts are nothing more than educated guesses but as there are so many things involved they need a bit of a pinch of salt. If you had no forecast at all would that actually be better - not sure.
While I don't agree that professional economists are frauds
I should probably correct myself, economic forecasting is a fraud and anyone pretending it's a solid basis for setting economic and fiscal policy is not following the evidence. Economics should be limited to understanding why stuff happens and creating new innovative models for organising the economy, not pretending it's some sort of weather forecast that policy makers must obey.
Thank you for the list, Politecameraaction. If you read throug you'll find it confirms the criticism I made - it's not related to the needs of the British economy. It's just a classification of jobs on level of skill and then makes the low skilled jobs inilegible. It strikes me that some of the inelegible jobs have being suffering growth handicapping shortages for years 8151 - 8159 for example - exactly the type of jobs that Australia has young people doing for six months. Britain doesn't need librarians but it does need construction workers.
The skilled occupation list is related to the needs of the British economy. It was produced by the (independent) Migration Advisory Committee on the basis of labour shortages in the economy identified by employers that could be sold by better access to foreign labour.
https://www.davidsonmorris.com/immigration-salary-list/
Again, the "young people [by which you mean foreigners] doing jobs for six months" scheme to which you vaguely refer in Australia already exists in the UK. It's the Youth Mobility Scheme.
https://www.gov.uk/youth-mobility
You really should consider looking into the facts of some of this stuff.
You really should consider looking into the facts of some of this stuff.
And you should perhaps learn some polite debating skills, impolitecameraction. Neither the lists nor the workings of the schemes are comparable. Try reading your own links and then compare with stated labour shortages in the building industry. The UK building industry says there is a shortage of 20 000 ground workers but they aren't on either of your lists, they are ineligible.
On the other hand if you want to extend your stay in Australia you have to work in things like farming or construction with an approved employer to extend the visa, junior's band mate has done it:
the Working Holiday Visa (subclass 417) allows holders to extend their stay by completing 88 days of specified regional work, such as farming, in eligible areas.
I'm suggesting that the Australian sytem works for them and could work for the UK too, it's not exactly the same and the countries don't have exactly the same lists, schemes, cost to workers and employers; so why pretend they do?. This is just a bike forum and "chat" with an exchange of ideas. We aren't in a court of law trying to find anyone guilty - well most of us aren't.
I hope Labour introduce a British politeness and decorum test for would be migrants.
The UK building industry says there is a shortage of 20 000 ground workers but they aren't on either of your lists, they are ineligible.
What that means is that there's a shortage at the price they want to pay. If they offered more money then the shortage would be would magically start to disappear. But of course, if wages go up then the bottom line goes down, the share price falls, and then it's the bonuses that do the disappearing act...
And Sir Keir Starmer continues to take the Labour Party to where it has never been before.....2 points behind Kemi Badenoch's Tory Party and level pegging with the Green Party. That's really quite something.
https://findoutnow.co.uk/blog/voting-intention-15th-october-2025/
Our Voting Intention tracker shows Labour on their lowest-ever vote share
Can anyone imagine what the reaction from the centrists and the right-wing press would be if Starmer was a Leftie?
Yeah I can too. However Starmer is no Leftie so they just shrug their shoulders and mutter something about no general election for almost 4 years so obviously nothing to worry about.
Besides, soon the new left party will presumably be included in the polls and it will all be the fault of Jeremy Corbyn that Labour are so unpopular with voters.
Besides, soon the new left party will presumably be included in the polls and it will all be the fault of Jeremy Corbyn that Labour are so unpopular with voters.
It's a strange one: we're told he's useless yet is also responsible for splitting Labour's vote.
I think the Australian and Canadian approach of a list of professions is a better approach if the objective is boosting the economy.I'm suggesting that the Australian sytem works for them and could work for the UK too, it's not exactly the same and the countries don't have exactly the same lists, schemes, cost to workers and employers; so why pretend they do?
No-one is pretending they're the same lists. You were unaware that the UK already had a list of professions prioritised for immigration, which is the Australian approach, and you wete unaware of how it is compiled. You were also unaware of the youth mobility scheme, which is equivalent and reciprocal to the Australian working holiday visa. And as you're still talking about agricultural temporary labour - are you familiar with the Seasonal Worker visa scheme that also already exists in the UK...?All of the things youre suggesting for the UK already exist in the UK.
Yey, Corbyn again! FFS.
Meanwhile, The Green Party has someone working hard to engage the public. The LibDems are pressing hard on care. And Labour are getting on with trying to bail us out of our ditch.
And Labour are getting on with trying to bail us out of our ditch.
They are? I'm not aware that they've managed to climb out of their own ditch, let alone the country's.
Yey, Corbyn again! FFS
Well can you think of any other reasons why Labour are so unpopular, staggeringly unpopular in fact?
As you say...."Labour are getting on with trying to bail us out of our ditch"
So it is obviously nothing to do with Starmer.
No-one is pretending they're the same lists. You were unaware that the UK already had a list of professions prioritised for immigration, which is the Australian approach, and you wete unaware of how it is compiled. You were also unaware of the youth mobility scheme, which is equivalent and reciprocal to the Australian working holiday visa. And as you're still talking about agricultural temporary labour - are you familiar with the Seasonal Worker visa scheme that also already exists in the UK...?All of the things youre suggesting for the UK already exist in the UK.
Worth pointing out that Australia also require evidence of English language proficiency for most if not all visa classes and certainly the skilled worker ones. Indeed some of them require the CEFR C1 or equivalent, which is a step up from the B2 level being proposed by UK Labour government now.
So many assumptions, policecameraction. You make a habit of assuming people are ignorant, thick, uninformed, don't read the newspapers, don't watch the news, don't know how to use a browser. Then get really annoyed and insulting when they demonstrate stuff is true that doesn't fit with your own special view of the world.
With regards to immigration conditions, costs to employers, incentives and disincentives to the workers concerned, shortages, atttitudes to immigrants, immigrant rights (or lack of)... it's all been done before on this thread and others. There's nothing off the wall here.
I'm not sure what you are traying to say or prove with unfair, inaccurate and gratuitous attack on my pretty innocuous reference to the Australian and Canadian systems which are different and perhaps a model to follow however much you claim the UK replicates them.
My most recent and direct contact with the immigrant workers in the UK were the excellent carers who turned up 4 times a day to look after my father in his final days. You know the people who feel in danger sitting in their cars between clients. I suggested the Canadians and Australians had ideas it might be worth copying but deliberately avoided slagging off the UK system, but as you've been so unpleasant about it I'll use a bit of AI browser skimming on the UK's treatment of migrants I've been close to and felt ashamed of :
Migrant care workers in the UK face severe challenges, including being charged up to £20,000 in illegal fees, enduring overcrowded and substandard housing, experiencing widespread racism, and living in fear of retaliation for reporting abuse due to their tied visa status.A significant number are also dissatisfied with their pay and working hours, with many working long, unpredictable shifts and not being paid for travel time or overtime.
Migrant care workers on the Health and Care Worker Visa are often required to pay large upfront fees to employers or intermediaries, with over 100 respondents in a Unison survey reporting payments between £5,000 and £20,000, and five paying £20,000 or more.
Workers frequently facepoor living conditions, including sharing beds with multiple colleagues, and some have been forced to sleep rough due to financial hardship.
A 2024 report by the Work Rights Centre found that 75% of surveyed migrant care workers were unhappy with their pay, 55% were dissatisfied with their work schedules, and nearly two-thirds reported breaches of their employment rights, including health and safety violations and discrimination.
The current sponsorship system ties workers to their employers, creating a power imbalance; if a worker leaves or their employer goes out of business, they have only 60 days to find a new sponsor or risk deportation, which discourages reporting abuse.
The government has introduced reforms, including requiring care providers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to sponsor workers, and restricting care workers from bringing dependants to the UK to reduce migration numbers.
Despite these changes, concerns remain that the system continues to enable exploitation, withreports of workers being threatened with visa revocation if they complain about their treatment.
Edit in case you think I'm imagining things:
The government closed the post-Brexit sponsored care worker visa route in July. Ahmed said: “We’ve still got 130,000 vacancies. A provider told me last week they had 80 applications for a job they were advertising and not one person turned up for the interview – that’s where it is with trying to get a domestic workforce.”
And Labour are getting on with trying to bail us out of our ditch.
They've been digging their own hole since day one.
And Labour are getting on with trying to bail us out of our ditch.
They've been digging their own hole since day one.
as you've been so unpleasant about it
I'm sorry that your feelings were hurt by me pointing out that things you were suggesting for the UK already existed in the UK, and giving you sources. As for the other paragraphs of your lengthy and emotional post - I'm afraid I have no idea what you're on about.
Have a great evening. 👍