Why the India trade deal is good for Labour
The trade deal is an all-too-rare example of Labour getting things right in opposition. Jonathan Reynolds, the Trade Secretary, met with his Indian counterpart, Piyush Goyal, in February last year. He made it clear that Labour would support the Conservative government if it finalised a trade deal with India – and would pick up the negotiations after the election if it didn't. Despite much ground being covered, Rishi Sunak could not succeed where Boris Johnson and Liz Truss failed and get the talks over the line by July 2024. At that point, Reynolds took over, wrapping up the deal in just 12 months.
Talks have been protracted for multiple reasons. India's average tariff rate is 13 per cent, compared with the UK's 1.5 per cent. Immigration has previously been a major sticking point, according to Kemi Badenoch, with today's deal facilitating some 1,800 annual extra visas for Indian yogis, chefs and musicians. Then there was the exemption on national insurance contributions: a subject of some controversy back in May. Today's agreement means staff from Indian companies who are temporarily transferred to the UK, and staff from British firms who are temporarily working in India, will only pay social security contributions in their home country, rather than in both places. The UK already has similar reciprocal 'double contribution convention' agreements with 17 other countries including the EU and the US. But that reaction was one reason why few in London and New Delhi expected this deal to be done so soon.
The best testament to Labour's success is evidenced in the reaction of the opposition. In his reaction, Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, admitted today's agreement is 'a step in the right direction' – before claiming that Labour's Employment Rights' Bill will outweigh any potential wins. For the government, securing this deal offers a winning narrative. Starmer will cite it as proof that hard work and careful planning can produce results in office. It also can help build relations between his party and British Indians, following the 2019 outcry over Jeremy Corbyn's perceived support for Pakistan over Kashmir.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I know the Home Office is hiding the real costs of asylum
Our immigration system sometimes feels like an organised conspiracy against the British people. For decades, the public have voted for drastic reductions in immigration, only to see the numbers go up and up. For years, they have demanded an end to the Channel crossings and the asylum crisis, only to see politicians refuse to do what is necessary. When governments do move in the right direction, they are undermined by weak enforcement, litigious and often publicly-funded NGOs, activist judges who are often former claimant lawyers in the immigration tribunals, and human rights laws that make securing the border an impossible job. Not that governments should be let off the hook: ultimately our constitution allows Parliament to change the law. The last Conservative government had the right idea to stop the Channel crossings. Deporting every migrant coming to Britain without permission – to their home country or a third country like Rwanda – is ultimately the only way to end this wave of illegal immigration. But the plan was never going to work unless we left the European Convention on Human Rights, and that government – with exceptions like Robert Jenrick, who resigned for this reason as immigration minister – was unwilling to go that far. Immigration is the biggest single reason my party is in the predicament it is in, and we must be brutally honest about our record and radical in our solutions if we are ever to win back the trust of the British people. Labour's approach, however, is even worse. They abandoned the policy of deporting migrants who cross the Channel and are now rushing illegal immigrants through the asylum system. Approvals are up, and once asylum is granted, the migrants are hidden in the social housing and welfare systems, where it is impossible to track their costs. The Office for Budget Responsibility calculates that the average 'low-wage migrant worker' arriving aged 25 will cost the British taxpayer over £400,000 by the time they reach 81. Ministers muddy the waters by claiming they are deporting record numbers of people. But this is dishonest. First, the numbers they use include migrants who leave voluntarily. And second, only about three per cent of Channel crossers are ever removed. It's no surprise that Channel crossings are up – by almost 50 per cent – under Labour. And the court injunction won by the Conservative council in Epping, which stops a local hotel being used to house migrants, throws the Government's policy into further chaos. But while the injunction is undoubtedly a clear victory for the local residents – vilified as 'far Right' by those who should know better – it may yet mean more trouble for communities affected by 'asylum dispersal'. Those hoping for a policy of detention and deportation will soon be disappointed. Human rights laws can prevent deportation, and Labour reject automatic deportation for those who cross the Channel. So the migrants will still end up housed in towns and cities across the country. There are already more than twice as many migrants in private housing, including houses of multiple occupancy, than in hotels. And accommodation like this may suit a government as cynical as this one better than hotels. Individual houses provide less of a focal point for protest than hotels, and the Home Office, working with Serco, has been building up its property portfolio for some time. With 1.33 million people on local waiting lists for social housing, this is a serious breach of the fundamental deal offered by citizenship. Foreign nationals – who broke into our country knowing it was illegal – are being offered housing that is not available to British families in need. And the unfortunate residents who live nearby are very deliberately kept in the dark. As an MP elected last year, I have been horrified by the secrecy with which ministers handle housing migrants. When I asked why MPs are not informed about migrants being moved into their constituencies, the immigration minister said we would only be told when it is 'lawful, proportional and necessary.' In other words: never. After the disorder last year, we learnt from press leaks that an internal government paper had said asylum hotels had 'stoked community tensions' and were a 'critical factor behind the summer riots.' Yet when I used the Freedom of Information Act to request a copy of the paper, the Government said while the information was held, it would not be released because ministers needed a 'safe space' to think about policy. The truth is that Labour's immigration policy means surrender and secrecy. The illegal immigrants crossing the Channel will keep on coming, Labour will keep granting them asylum, and ministers will do everything to keep the consequences – for housing, for crime, for the cost to the taxpayer – a secret from you.
Scotsman
36 minutes ago
- Scotsman
Edinburgh council leader says having Cammy Day represent city 'made perfect sense'
Sending former council leader Cammy Day to represent Edinburgh to an international delegation earlier this month 'made perfect sense, ' according to the city's leader. Sign up to our daily newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Along with fellow Labour councillor James Dalgleish and other city figures, Cllr Day met with 26 visiting councillors from Kaohsiung, Taiwan in Edinburgh. The news came at the city's Policy and Sustainability Committee on Tuesday, where council leader Jane Meagher said she put his name forward due to her being unable to attend. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Cllr Day resigned his role as council leader in December last year over allegations he had sent sexual messages to Ukrainian refugees living in the Capital. He was also suspended by the Labour Party, but recently was readmitted to the party and their council group after he was cleared of any criminal behaviour by police in May. SNP councillor Kate Campbell raised questions over why Cllr Day was in attendance, given the 'widespread acknowledgement' that he had carried out inappropriate behaviour. Councillor Meagher said: 'I wasn't available for this, and it seemed to me to be a matter of common sense to include Councillor Day given his historical involvement and knowledge of our friendship agreement with [Kaohsiung]. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'For that reason, it made perfect sense for him to be there, to help smooth the path between Cllr Dalgleish and the delegation, which I gather was extremely powerful and helpful. 'It made perfect sense not to exclude somebody who had done a considerable amount of work in developing this friendship agreement with Taiwan.' Former council leader Cammy Day | supplied Cllr Campbell had also asked about two Edinburgh University representatives in the delegation who had been unable to attend at the last minute due to ill health. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She said that she did not doubt that they were unwell, but asked whether a policy of notifying city partners of what councillors may be present at an event would be wise. Council officer Chris Adams, who covers international relationships, said that the two representatives had been unwell, but that he did not have any more information about them. Cllr Meagher added: 'As far as Edinburgh University attendance is concerned, I don't think we can draw any conclusions around their motives for not being able to attend. 'If we think about global politics, it might be that you draw conclusions related to that, rather than to any individuals who might be present.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A large portion of Edinburgh University's student body is from China, which does not recognise Taiwan as an independent country. Mr Adams said Cllr Dalgleish was in attendance at the meeting in his civic duty as a Bailie, a representative of the Lord Provost. And standing in for the Lord Provost, who was unable to attend, was another Bailie, James Douglas. He said the university attendees had been set to discuss the research connections between Edinburgh University and universities in Asia. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He also said James McVeigh from Festivals Edinburgh was also in attendance, and that much of the conversation in the meeting was around how Edinburgh handles the festivals. Cllr Meagher said she understood that the discussions were 'extremely powerful and helpful'. Edinburgh has a range of sister city and friendship agreements with cities around the globe, including Krakow, Dunedin, Kyiv and San Diego.
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How Labour can build a stronger British economy
If Rachel Reeves is serious about ensuring that Labour's second year in power is all about a stronger economy that rewards working people across the country (In our first year Labour fixed the foundations – now we must build a stronger economy for a renewed Britain, 13 August), she needs to rethink what your editorial called the UK's 'broken growth model' (6 August). The growth that Britain needs is an increase in economic activity that improves social and environmental infrastructure nationwide. This involves a huge increase in secure, well-paid jobs to rebuild a more resilient future economy. The last thing that is required is Reeves's obsession with more deregulation of the City and pressuring savers into investing in the stock market. What is needed instead is a massive increase in a socially and green-oriented bond market that will provide secure returns for savers. This will require intense pressure to be put on Reeves to shift her emphasis away from global financiers to recognising UK savers as saviours. She should make clear that in return for the tax breaks that those investing in Isas and pensions receive, a considerable percentage of such savings would be invested in green and social infrastructure projects. This would help tackle the climate crisis and rebuild our economy as well as the crumbling cohesion of our society. Colin HinesConvener, Green New Deal Group Rachel Reeves wants to solve Britain's productivity problem by kickstarting economic growth. Four decades ago, Britain decided to become a consumer economy when others chose to be investment economies. The mistake in tackling the fallout of the global financial crisis after 2008 was to slash capital spending at a time when money was cheap. The chaotic governments of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss created damaging uncertainty for investors. The world has become more uncertain, but political decisions also mean growth each year was on average twice as strong in the 16 years before the financial crisis than in the 16 years since, taxation as a proportion of GDP has reached historic highs and productivity is painfully weak. The chancellor needs to be bold and ambitious for Britain's economy. We must exploit the opportunities of the digital revolution, advance our skills base, join up government so that departments are all focused on growth and become a true investment economy at Stephen BarberUniversity of East London Rachel Reeves claims to have fixed the country's financial foundations in Labour's first year in office, but I am certain that the 4.5 million children still living in poverty, an increase of 100,000 from the previous year, wouldn't agree. At the same time, UK billionaires' wealth increased by £35m a day to £182bn, with Britain having the highest proportion of billionaire wealth derived from monopolies and cronyism among G7 Michael SymondsEmeritus professor, University of Nottingham No, you haven't 'fixed the foundations', chancellor. Where are the Labour values in 'renewal is our mission and productivity is our challenge'? Not a word about redressing the wealth gap between the rich and the poor; not a word about ending the two-child benefit cap; not a word about restoring the level of overseas aid. Rachel Reeves's article could have been written by George Osborne – and I for one fear what else that might entail for our dilapidated public space. It isn't good enough just to be wealthy – it's what you do with it and how fairly you spread it that counts. That is supposed to be the Labour D BryantPenarth, Glamorgan I find it disappointing that Rachel Reeves refers only to 'working people'. This indicates that she is not considering other groups such as pensioners, or those who cannot work either through disability or because of a lack of suitable jobs for which they are qualified. She refuses to target the super-rich, preferring to hit easy targets by keeping the two-child benefit cap, not raising tax thresholds (pushing more people into paying tax and higher tax) and targeting cash Isa allowances. Some people have had bad experiences with stocks and shares and are reluctant to risk their savings again. She has not learned at least two things from history: first, trickle-down economics does not work, as wealth floods into foreign tax havens, not to the less well off. And second, removing restrictions on the financial sector leads to people and financial organisations being overstretched and a banking EvesMold, Flintshire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
