Reader's views on the various policies of Reform UK
But here's the truth: This is not a tax break for all Indian workers. It's a standard exemption for a small group of seconded workers, people temporarily sent to the UK by their company, usually for just a few years.
They don't pay National Insurance twice, once here and once at home. That's it. And guess what? British workers posted abroad get the same deal. We've had this arrangement with the US, Japan, and others for years. Reform UK has a two-tier system of working conditions.
If you work under them as a civil servant in the council, they will replace you if you don't stop working from home. While if you work for the party, then you have the option of working from home, the difference is that one follows a Trump agenda, and the other doesn't.
The head of one of Britain's biggest fracking companies said fracking won't work in the UK due to 'challenging geology' - and in turn, won't bring down energy prices.
If the head of a fracking company can see fracking won't work, why can't Nigel Farage?
Finally, Reform UK's main policy is to stop the boat people, and that is to tow the boats back to France. Currently, the UK and France don't have that kind of agreement, thanks to Brexit. Even though that policy doesn't stop the boats from leaving the French shores, it's not a proper policy.
Many thanks,
Andrew Nutt,
Bargoed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
17 minutes ago
- NBC News
As feud escalates, Trump implies government could cut contracts and subsidies to Musk's companies
President Donald Trump has escalated his sudden rupture with Elon Musk by implying the government could sever ties with the tech titan's businesses. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it" Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Thursday afternoon. Trump's post comes in the midst of a stunning exchange between Musk and Trump that erupted Thursday when the president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was disappointed with Musk's criticism ofthe Republican policy bill that is making its way through Congress. Musk then launched into a tire on X, where he posted throughout early Thursday a variety of critiques of Trump, the bill and other Republican politicians. In response to another Trump post, Musk said the president was lying. Various estimates have put forward of just how much Musk's firms, primarily SpaceX and Tesla, benefit from government contracts and subsidies. The Washington Post has put the figure at $38 billion. The value of government support to SpaceX, which includes Musk's high-profile space-launch ventures in addition to its Starlink satellite subsidiary — is worth $22 billion alone according to comments made by SpaceX chief Gwynne Shotwell. Tesla has benefited from approximately $11.4 billion in regulatory credits aimed at boosting electric-vehicle purchases, though that figure also includes state subsidies. Reuters has reported that the true figure is classified due to the nature of many of the contracts Musk's firms are under. Shares in Tesla, which had already fallen 8% Thursday as the tit-for-tat escalated on social media, declined as much as 12% following Trump's post.
The National
18 minutes ago
- The National
Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely
For any country, reviewing defence in the modern age is a valuable exercise. The UK's new strategic defence review fails to get to grips with those challenges, and perpetuates a view of security as being solely about the aggressive projection of military power. We do face direct threats that we need to acknowledge, not least from the brutal Putin regime. A military-only response risks seeing the whole world 'tooling up' for conflict, creating a tinderbox situation, and also misses the other action we can take which we know improves human security and makes conflict less likely. READ MORE: BBC Debate Night branded 'farce' as formal complaint made over 'bias' Strong international cooperation and a commitment to the international rule of law are critical to improving security, yet the UK continues to arm war criminal regimes instead of pursuing justice against them. Alliances must be fostered with countries we trust, and the threat of far-right regimes must be acknowledged. Yet the UK continues to treat the Trump regime as though it's a reliable ally, while it threatens democratic countries like Greenland and Canada. Food and water security, and so much else that international development invests in, also provide the basis for a more secure world. Yet the UK has followed the lead of the Trump White House by slashing development aid. The climate emergency is barely mentioned in the review, and where it does come up it's mostly about access to Arctic waters rather than the profound threat it poses to human and environmental security around the world. And of course the UK's continued attachment to nuclear weapons continues unabated. Reconsidering the vastly expensive replacement of Trident doesn't even merit a line. In truth, Trident poses a greater threat to the people of Scotland than it does to anyone else. Its record of accidents and poor maintenance goes back a long way, and its presence makes the west coast of Scotland a key target in any potential conflict. The hundreds of billions of pounds spent on these weapons could be far better spent on international development, climate action, or emerging issues like cybersecurity or biosecurity which can't be addressed by just hiking military spending. There's so much that's needed aside from military responses that can actually reduce the threats we face instead of funnelling even more funds towards nuclear weapons. Let's also remember that these are weapons which cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets, and whose use in any circumstances would surely be the biggest war crime in human history. Such a decision made now will lock us into a more dangerous world, for decades to come. And that decision would be at the expense of action that could be taken to promote peace, and make progress towards a world that's safer because it's fairer, greener, and more just. As for the claims about jobs, this truly is a red herring. Spend tens of billions on pretty much anything and you'll create jobs, and in truth there are far better ways to build an economy that works for people than making a '10 times more lethal' army. A defence review that really engages with the changing world we live in is something I'd really like to see. This simply isn't it.
Rhyl Journal
20 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Gerry Adams to donate 100,000 euros to Irish language and Palestinian charities
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement. Last Friday a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article. The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs. During an eight-minute video posted on the official Sinn Fein YouTube channel, Mr Adams accused the BBC of showing 'arrogance' when it did not resolve the dispute after he issued legal letters nine years ago. In Putting Manners On The BBC – The Gerry Adams Blog, Mr Adams said that the BBC has been held accountable for the content it broadcasts. Mr Adams said: 'As for the money that the jury awarded me in damages, I will donate this to good causes. 'These will include the children of Gaza, groups in Ireland involved in helping the homeless, Cumann Carad, the Irish language sector and other projects like this in west Belfast.' He added: 'When the case began six weeks ago, the BBC's legal strategy was evident very quickly. Their narrative was that pursued by successive British and Irish governments for years. 'They blamed everything during the conflict on Irish Republicans and by extension, during this trial, on me. 'The BBC lawyers embarked on a Jesuitical presentation of the case that tried to convince the jurors that the words broadcast and published by the British Broadcasting Corporation, that I had sanctioned the murder of Denis Donaldson, did not, in fact, mean that I sanctioned the murder of Denis Donaldson. 'They were, they said, that's the British Broadcasting Corporation, not defending the truth of the accusation. 'Instead they were defending, they claimed, their journalism, which they said was fair and reasonable, in the public interest and made in good faith. 'They concluded their case by trying to exert moral pressure on the jurors by claiming that a defeat for the British Broadcasting Corporation would be a blow to freedom of speech and a setback to victims. 'In the end the jury didn't buy in to any of this. 'On all the key issues the jurors unanimously accepted that the script used by the Spotlight programme did mean that I had sanctioned and approved the murder of Denis Donaldson.' He said that after the BBC's decision to air the Spotlight programme, he decided to sue the broadcaster. Mr Adams said the BBC could have resolved the dispute there and then. 'They chose not to. Why? That's a question to be asked. Why did they not resolve this issue when they could have? 'Was it arrogance? Yes, that's part of it. But I also suspect political interference. 'In January, the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer responded to a decision in the High Court in Belfast, which included that I and, by implication, up to 400 other former internees, were wrongfully detained and that we were entitled to compensation. 'Mr Starmer told the British Parliament that he would look at every conceivable way to block compensation being paid.' Mr Adams also urged the Minister for Justice Jim O'Callaghan to met Denis Donaldson's family. He signed off by saying 'slan agus tog go bog e', which means goodbye and take it easy. Earlier this week the BBC was granted time to consider appealing against the jury's decision. The broadcaster was granted a stay on paying the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal. The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees.
