Keir Starmer's India trade deal slammed as gift to Nigel Farage
The Labour Government announced on Tuesday that the UK and India have finally struck a trade deal after years of negotiations following Brexit.
Tariffs will be slashed on a number of British exports including whisky and Scottish salmon.
But opposition politicians have criticised a provision in the deal exempting some temporary Indian workers from National Insurance payments, claiming this would undercut British staff – which Jonathan Reynolds described as 'completely false'.
READ MORE: Everything you need to know about John Swinney's Programme for Government
Under the terms of the agreement, staff working for an Indian company who transferred to the UK for less than three years would pay into the Indian social security system rather than paying into both British and Indian systems as they do now.
UK workers temporarily in India would remain subject to national insurance, but be exempt from Indian social security levies.
Asked about her view on the deal, Sarkar hit out at Keir Starmer for being 'inconsistent' in terms of messaging.
(Image: PA)
'It wasn't that long ago he was saying that globalisation was over. Globalisation was dead. And I think that this speaks to a lack of joined up thinking and consistency that is at the heart of his political project. I don't think that this is a man with a strong sense of vision or a particularly attuned ear when it comes to domestic politics.
She added: 'I couldn't think of worse timing for a policy announcement like this, or something which is going to be more to the benefit of Nigel Farage and Reform.'
BBC host Jo Coburn then asked Sarkar about the 'substance' of the deal.
'I mean, it is still a free trade deal with a country that is known to be protectionist, that will open up and probably go towards boosting growth. The core mission of the Government,' Coburn said.
But Sarkar said the growth globalisation has brought has been 'very uneven'.
'It's benefited very rich people and different regions at different paces. And so, if you're someone in the UK, who works in the remnants of our industrial, manual sectors, it might not actually benefit you,' she said.
Sarkar added: 'I think when you couple that with this question of National Insurance contributions, it couldn't be more to Reform's benefit than if Nigel Farage had written it himself.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Does Denmark hold the key to Britain's asylum problem?
'They've got to know that if they come here, they won't stay here.' Nigel Farage? Robert Jenrick? Suella Braverman? Not on this occasion. These hostile words about refugees coming by irregular means to Britain were uttered on the BBC by a King's Counsel, chum of Tony Blair, the former lord chancellor and impeccable social democrat Lord Falconer. A pillar of the liberal establishment and still a senior and respected figure in Labour circles, Charlie Falconer is perhaps indicative of a shifting mood at the top of his party about how to deal with the migrant crisis – both in practical policy terms, and as it is currently translating into some pretty raw party politics. As Falconer says, immigration, and specifically irregular so-called 'illegal' migration is fast becoming a 'defining political issue'. As he did not say, but heavily implied, it may also kill the first Labour government for 14 years long before its time. Falconer sees one part of the solution as deterrence. His logic seems impeccable. If you are going to make the arduous journey across continents, pay all that money to the people traffickers and risk your life in the English Channel, then that only makes sense if it seems likely you'll make a successful claim for asylum and, hopefully, at some point be able to bring your family over to start a new life: job, home, happiness. If you think you're not going to secure any of this then, so Falconer thinks, you won't bother. To be fair, this is a point of view that has been increasingly seen in European countries by centrist parties that would never consider themselves racist or callous. They do so simply because of the weight of public opinion. Ever since Angela Merkel made that huge act of statesmanship and humanity by welcoming a million Syrian refugees into Germany a decade ago, the tide of compassion has been going out. The sheer numbers are the issue, as well as a welter of propaganda, misinformation and downright lies circulating across the continent, especially on social media. Public opinion has hardened, and democratic politicians have had to adapt. Hence the change of stance in countries traditionally open to immigration. In Germany, Merkel's successor as leader of the Christian Democrats and chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has abandoned the old Willkommenskultur, introduced border checks and granted the police the power to reject asylum seekers at the border, albeit if they have good reason to. Apparently, they're interested in taking up the Rwanda scheme scrapped by Keir Starmer as soon as Labour came to power last year. Other countries are following suit. Poland, Slovenia, Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and France have also imposed temporary border controls and suspended the EU Schengen free-movement regime. So has Italy, where Giorgia Meloni has instituted the first working system of third-country asylum processing through a treaty with Albania. Denmark's centrist coalition has introduced a series of policies that have made it less attractive for migrants – not least a law allowing asylum claims to be processed and refugees to be resettled in partner countries, including Rwanda. Once a renowned welfare state paradise, Denmark has also cut benefits for asylum seekers, made leave to remain strictly temporary and conditional, and a few years ago even made refugees surrender their jewellery to pay for their keep. Some Syrians and Somalis – and their Danish-born children – have reportedly been asked to 'return' to what are now deemed safe countries. Since coming to power in 2019, prime minister Mette Frederiksen has introduced " Nul flygtninge", the 'zero refugee' policy that has successfully reduced asylum applications to record lows, and which enjoys a more than 80 per cent public approval rating. None of this is pleasant, and much of it would seem to be in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights, under which the right to claim protection is absolute and unaffected by opinion polls. The pressing question now though is would a 'deterrent' involving deportation to some other place than Britain even work? Can there be such a thing as a deterrent for desperate people already risking death by drowning or hypothermia? I suspect not. As things stand, and unsatisfactory as the system is, the asylum seekers generally surrender themselves once in British waters, where Border Force, sometimes with the help of the RNLI, take them ashore and, eventually, the authorities process their claims while they wait in emergency accommodation such as requisitioned hotels. It is orderly. But if the would-be immigrants thought they'd be immediately detained and sent back to France (a small chance under the new returns agreement with Paris), or sent to, say, Albania, or Serbia, or even Rwanda for that matter, what would happen? Would the flow stop? I have my doubts. Some would probably judge it would not be worth the effort. But, as so often in the past, the people-smugglers would adjust their 'business model' and they and the immigrants would seek to evade the new regime. Thus, instead of declaring themselves as they neared the British coast, they'd press on, perhaps now under cover of darkness, and make a surreptitious landing on some remote beach and then melt into the countryside. They'd soon be in the grey economy, working for cash, living in slum accommodation, unable legally to access healthcare or education for their children, and far more prey to criminality. Something of this has been the case in America, with 'undocumented' long-term migrants, for many years. The Border Force and the Royal Navy don't have the resources to catch all of the rogue boats. The only way of dealing with such a new phenomenon of irregular migration would be through a system of checks and compulsory ID cards. But the British remain resistant to a 'Papers, please' society, which is actually essential if any progress is to be made on limiting irregular migration, and especially if the asylum system is effectively abolished. The weakness in Falconer's argument is that the deterrent of being sent to some awful country will only work to the extent that they will be caught, either in transit or later on, when they're far away from the south coast of England. A 'deterrent' may prove to be part of the answer, but that's all. As has been apparent for a very long time, and in very many other countries, if there was an easy way to deter irregular migration and 'stop the boats', it would have long since been discovered by hard-pressed governments anxious to stay in power and terrified by angry voters. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a charlatan.
Scotsman
23 minutes ago
- Scotsman
SNP may never repay Peter Murrell's loan as party's 'deep deficit' and dwindling membership revealed
The SNP has seen another tumble in the number of members. Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, 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... The SNP may never pay back a loan to former chief executive Peter Murrell as the party grapples with a deficit of almost £500,000 and a further fall in membership numbers. The latest accounts show John Swinney's party was running at a deficit of £455,254 last year as the SNP's financial position deteriorated from the £600,00 surplus it enjoyed in 2023. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell has been charged in connection with alleged embezzlement of party funds | PA (Press Association) Mr Murrell, the former SNP chief executive, was arrested and charged over the embezzlement of party funds as part of Operation Branchform. Mr Murrell loaned the SNP £107,620 in 2021, with £47,670 repaid between August and October that year. The accounts show that £60,000 is still owed to Mr Murrell, who is married but separated to former SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But the prospect has been raised that the loan "may ultimately be waived or written off' due to a lack of dialogue and communication between Mr Murrell and the SNP. The accounts state: "There is no formal loan agreement in place, no interest is charged on the outstanding balance, and no specific repayment terms have been agreed. "Due to the absence of agreed repayment terms and the lack of recent communication regarding settlement, there is uncertainty as to when, or if, this loan will be repaid to the former executive chief executive, and whether it may ultimately be waived or written off." The accounts also reveal that the SNP spent £100,790 on a now-infamous motorhome that was seized by police as part of an investigation into the party's finances, called Operation Branchform. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The accounts state that the SNP 'retains ownership of the vehicle and expects its future release' but adds the party 'does not have current information regarding the physical condition or state of repair of the motorhome'. The vehicle is now estimated to be worth £41,284 to the SNP, less than half of its original cost, with an assumption 'there has been no additional impairment beyond normal depreciation' after being seized by Police Scotland. The SNP had 56,011 members as of June 1 this year, according to the accounts, a fall of more than 8,500 on the 64,525 members the party had in June 2024. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In June 2023, the party recorded 73,936 SNP members, while in 2019, the party had a peak of 125,691 members. READ MORE: SNP membership drops again as size of fall revealed The SNP accounts state that 'while we remain by far and away Scotland's largest political party – with 56,011 members as at 1st June 2025 - we continue to face the challenge of membership numbers declining from historic and extraordinary highs, for a variety of economic, political and other reasons'. The document adds: 'Not only does this impact on membership income, but also other income streams too.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Labour deputy leader, Jackie Baillie, said: "Eyebrows will be raised about the financial sustainability of the SNP when they have such a deep deficit. Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie (Photo by Fraser Bremner - Pool/Getty Images) "The public will also ask why the party's former chief executive Peter Murrell is set to be given legal aid at the expense of the taxpayer when he has seemingly made no request to the SNP for the outstanding £60,000, he loaned them to be repaid – and that this could now be waived or written off. "Meanwhile, the infamous campervan is estimated to have significantly depreciated in value after sitting in a Police Scotland vehicle pound for over two years. "Just weeks after the publication of Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, many Scots will wonder whether the paperback version will have anything to say about the dire financial state the party now finds itself in." Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scottish Conservative shadow finance secretary Craig Hoy MSP said: 'The SNP's latest set of accounts continue to raise serious questions for them. Craig Hoy MSP. 'With a deficit of nearly half a million it is clear the nationalists cannot be trusted to even run their own finances, nevermind the ever-growing blackhole they are presiding over in Scotland's finances. 'It is remarkable that they still owe such a large sum of money to their disgraced former chief executive Peter Murrell and appear to be making no efforts to repay it. Scots will be wondering why they have still not severed all ties with him. 'SNP bosses must also urgently come clean over what is happening in relation to their infamous campervan. It is now worth well over less than half of what they initially paid for it though they claim they expect it to be released in the future. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'As even diehard nationalists continue to lose faith in the SNP, it sums up why we must get them out next year and finally move Scotland on from the SNP's independence obsession.'
The National
23 minutes ago
- The National
UK Government refuses to comment as Donald Trump sanctions ICC judges
The move, which saw US secretary of state Marco Rubio accuse the top international court of 'lawfare' against Israel, was widely condemned. France's government expressed 'dismay' that a French judge was among those sanctioned, saying the US actions were "in contradiction to the principle of an independent judiciary". United Nations spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, adding: "The [US] decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor." READ MORE: 'Let's pick a fight': Ross Greer pitches alternative Scottish independence strategy And the ICC itself said it 'deplores' the sanctions, calling them "a flagrant attack" against the independence of an impartial judicial institution. However, the UK Labour Government has refused to say anything at all. Asked for a statement in response to the US sanctions, the Foreign Office declined to say anything on the record. Donald Trump's administration has targeted Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, all of whom have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States. The designations freeze any US assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the US financial system. "United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC's politicisation, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach," Rubio said. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is accused of crimes against humanity by ICC prosecutorsGuillou is an ICC judge who presided over a pre-trial panel that issued the arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Khan and Niang are the court's two deputy prosecutors. Canadian Judge Prost served on an ICC appeals chamber that, in March 2020, unanimously authorized the ICC prosecutor to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan since 2003, including examining the role of US service members. In February, when Trump threatened to sanction ICC officials who worked on cases against the US, the UK was one of 79 countries to sign a statement in support of the court's independence. "We reaffirm our continued and unwavering support for the independence, impartiality and integrity of the ICC," the statement said. READ MORE: UK Government-owned non-profit has over £1.4m contract with IDF-linked firm "The court serves as a vital pillar of the international justice system by ensuring accountability for the most serious international crimes, and justice for victims." At the time, the US also sanctioned British lawyer Karim Khan, the ICC's chief prosecutor. Khan had successfully sought an arrest warrant for Netanyahu over allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Netanyahu, who is also accused of spearheading genocide in Palestine by international experts, has been defended by Trump's administration. The US president accused the ICC of having 'abused its power by issuing baseless warrants' against Israeli ministers. Netanyahu welcomed the US decision to sanction four further ICC officials. Neither Israel nor the US are signatories to the Rome Statute which established the ICC.
