
Keir Starmer should smash the gig economy
He added that the small boats crisis is 'the fault of the English' because the migrants 'know they'll end up getting work there'. The only way to end the Channel migrant crisis, says Bertrand, is for the British government to 'put an end [to] illegal labour immigration'.
Bertrand has been banging this drum for a decade. In the summer of 2015, he wrote to David Cameron, then the prime minister, about the 3,000 migrants massed on the French coast, most of whom were young men from Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea. 'Let's put an end to the hypocrisy of pretending that we don't know that most of them want to go to England, where it is much easier to work without papers than in France,' said Bertrand.
Cameron did promise that year to crack down on the phenomenon, announcing his determination to introduce an immigration 'taskforce', the main purpose of which would be to make 'Britain a less attractive place to come and work illegally'. 'The truth is', Camerons said, 'it has been too easy to work illegally and employ illegal workers here.'
That never happened. On the contrary, it was on Cameron's watch that Britain's 'gig economy' exploded. Companies such as Deliveroo, Uber and Just Eat were regarded by the PM and his chancellor, George Osborne, as the exciting future of the British economy.
The companies portrayed their workers as students or mums and dads looking to make some cash on the side; for years they vigorously fought attempts to have their drivers and deliverers recognised as workers. That would give them rights.
It has become increasingly obvious in recent years that many of the people working for these companies are illegal immigrants. In 2023, a random Home Office screening of delivery riders found that 40 per cent fitted this description.
Earlier this year, an undercover reporter from the Sun, posing as a small-boat arrival from Afghanistan, was able to sign up as a delivery driver within ten minutes. 'When asked if having no documents was a problem, one 'Deliveroo dealer' told him: 'You will not be caught, inshallah'', reported the newspaper.
In France, on the other hand, you will be caught, which is why most migrants looking for easy work, once they have entered France from Spain or Italy, head straight to the Channel coast.
In December last year, Just Eat ceased trading in France, a victim not just of high operating costs but also 'pressure to improve working conditions for delivery drivers'. Just Eat's announcement came a month after the Paris Administrative Court overturned its redundancy plan to lay off more than 100 people.
Last month, the Paris Court of Appeal ordered Deliveroo to reinstate a delivery driver who had been fired in 2020 for 'discrimination on health grounds'. The British company was also ordered to pay the driver €93,000 [£80,000] in unpaid wages.
In 2022, a French court handed two former bosses of Deliveroo suspended one year prison sentences for 'abusing the freelance status of riders'.
Two years earlier a Paris labour court found the company guilty of 'undeclared work' by a delivery rider; his lawyer told the press that paying him as an independent contractor and not a regular employee 'was an attempt to skirt labour laws'.
In 2022, Joe Carberry, the head of corporate communications at Deliveroo, said that France was 'the most progressive example' of gig economy regulation because under its law employees were entitled to social security, pension contributions and unemployment benefits.
Carberry made his remarks at a fringe event at that year's Labour Party conference; before joining Deliveroo, Carberry worked for the party, first as a special adviser to David Miliband and then as Labour's head of research between 2015 to 2017.
The event was organised by Progressive Britain, described by the Guardian as a 'Blairite think-tank', whose board of directors include Kay Carberry, Joe's mum; she received a CBE in 2007 for services to employment relations.
The Deliveroo meeting was criticised by Alex Marshall, president of the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain. 'It is quite ironic that Deliveroo points to France as progressive… they have received huge fines and a suspended jail sentence there.'
France has also fined Uber 'for deceptive commercial practices', forcing the ride-hailing app in its own words to rethink 'its business model in light of local expectations'.
There has been no such rethink in Britain, but there needs to be in light of the mounting evidence that this business model is fuelling the migrant crisis. Perhaps smashing the gig economy and not the gangs should be Keir Starmer's priority.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Metro
26 minutes ago
- Metro
What will happen after Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska?
The stakes are high for Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin when the pair meet in Alaska on Friday to discuss ending the war in Ukraine. The US President and his Russian counterpart will sit down at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in the largest US state – a site chosen due to its close proximity to Russia. Addressing reporters at the White House last week, Trump suggested an agreement would involve some exchange of land between Ukraine and Russia. 'There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both,' the Republican president said. But Volodymyr Zelensky has pushed against that, saying Ukrainians 'will not gift their land to the occupiers'. In a video address to the nation posted on his Telegram channel on Saturday, the Ukrainian President said any decisions without Ukraine would be decisions against peace. He added: 'They will not bring anything. These are dead decisions. They will never work.' When Trump revealed his plans for a meeting with Putin last week, he also floated a potential second meeting where Zelensky would join them. Following a virtual chat with European and Nato leaders yesterday afternoon, the US President again suggested the trilateral could take place soon after the Alaska summit. Trump and Putin would use their initial tete-a-tete to 'find out where we are and what we're doing', he said, adding: 'We'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky and myself, if they'd like to have me there.' The Kremlin has confirmed additional details of the summit between the two leaders on Friday. Presidential aide Yuri Ushakov said they will initially meet one-on-one with interpreters at 11.30am local time, which is 8.30pm UK time. Afterwards, five additional members from each delegation will join Trump and Putin. The pair will then hold a joint press conference. Donald Trump notoriously promised he would be able to bring the war between Russia and Ukraine to an end on day one after being re-elected. Of course, that didn't happen – and after some success in bringing violence to a stop between Israel and Iran as well as other countries, he may see this conflict as something like a white whale. Negotiations between US and Russian officials so far this year have failed to bring the bloodshed in Ukraine to an end. Trump is a big believer in his deal-making talents, and he thinks getting himself into a room with Putin may present the best shot at nailing down a result. The meeting will also touch on co-operation and trade between the US and Russia, so the two presidents may be hoping for broader results. The likelihood of the trilateral taking place may depend heavily on the outcome of the Friday bilateral. Trump has said there will be 'very serious consequences' if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire, though he did not specify what they were. If the long-awaited three-way meeting does take place, one of the leaders will come to the table at a significant disadvantage, according to British Foreign Policy Group think tank director Evie Aspinall. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Aspinall said Trump is 'feeling relatively confident about the situation' after weeks of trumpeting his role in stopping conflicts between Israel and Iran, India and Pakistan, and several other regions around the world. She told Metro: 'I think in his mind, he's managed to bring Putin to the table, and he's going to use it as an opportunity to really cement himself as this deal maker and as someone that is able to secure peace in the world. 'And so what he wants, really, is a ceasefire. He wants an end to the war in Ukraine. His intent is fairly straightforward. He wants to see the war end, and he wants to be seen as the man that makes that possible.' Ultimately, the summit is 'as much as anything, an image thing' for Trump, she argued, as it would also mean disentangling the US from a global conflict. Putin, meanwhile, is 'making huge progress militarily' in Ukraine and is able to use the meeting to secure two big objectives – demonstrating to Trump he is 'reasonable' enough to negotiate, and buying time on the battlefield. Aspinall said: 'Putin will be building up his resources so that he is in the best position possible for when a ceasefire or full negotiation then happens. 'He wants to use this as an opportunity to show that he's on Trump's side.' The US President may have appeared to sharpen his stance against his Russian counterpart in recent weeks, notably hitting India with punitive tariffs for buying Russia's oil. But Aspinall explained it's likely a shrewd move from Putin to sit down for talks at this point in time. She said: 'I think Putin is playing quite well for the Russians. By coming to negotiating table, he's managed to get Trump to wait, step back from the threats of sanctions for now. 'What he'll be hoping is that he presents himself as reasonable in these meetings, and then Trump doesn't go on with the sanctions that are supposed to hit imminently.' For Zelensky, the summit will be much more of a high-wire act with far more risks. Aspinall said: 'I think there is possible progress. The problem with the progress is it will be on Putin's terms, rather than Zelensky's terms. 'I think there is a world in which you see Trump and Putin come out saying, 'This is a deal that would work,' and then you have Europe and Ukraine pushing back very heavily on that, and a negotiation over that deal.' The Ukrainian President's best bet might be to challenge Putin's position as the 'reasonable actor' in the negotiations by pressing hard on the Russian leader's red lines – such as agreeing to Ukraine joining Nato. This could 'push Putin into a corner', suggested Aspinall, which might be Zelensky's best chance at leverage. More Trending But she was clear Ukraine has more to lose in a likely deal. Russia could be flexible on territory swaps, and offer them in exchange for Putin's bigger prizes: blocking Ukrainian Nato membership, shrinking the size of its military, and forcing elections that would 'inevitably be biased by Russian disinformation'. Aspinall said: 'the Territory part is the part that they will probably be softer on, as a way for Trump to come out and say, we're not giving Putin everything. We've got the territory back, for example. 'But Putin can sell it as you know, we no longer have an aggressor on our doorstep. We have a supporter and ally of Russia on our doorstep.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Trump and Putin to discuss 'huge untapped potential' for Russia-US economic gains MORE: Fans slam iconic 80s rockers for calling Trump appointment 'great honour' MORE: Keir Starmer embraces Volodymyr Zelensky on Downing Street ahead of Trump-Putin meeting

Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Starmer to welcome Zelensky to No 10 ahead of Trump meeting with Putin
The Prime Minister's meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky comes after he said Britain stands ready to 'increase pressure' on Russia if necessary. Meanwhile, Mr Trump threatened Russia with 'severe consequences' if a ceasefire was rejected by its leader. During a call with the US president and European allies on Wednesday, Sir Keir praised Mr Trump for his work to bring forward a 'viable' chance of an end to the war. But concerns have been raised over Mr Zelensky's exclusion from the meeting between the Mr Trump and Mr Putin, which is set to take place in Alaska on Friday. Speaking on Wednesday, Sir Keir said: 'This meeting on Friday that President Trump is attending is hugely important. 'As I've said personally to President Trump for the three-and-a-bit years this conflict has been going on, we haven't got anywhere near a prospect of actually a viable solution, a viable way of bringing it to a ceasefire. 'And now we do have that chance, because of the work of that the president has put in.' Further sanctions could be imposed on Russia should the Kremlin fail to engage, and the UK is already working on its next package of measures targeting Moscow, he said. 'We're ready to support this, including from the plans we've already drawn up to deploy a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased,' he told allies. 'It is important to remind colleagues that we do stand ready also to increase pressure on Russia, particularly the economy, with sanctions and wider measures as may be necessary.' Sir Keir and European leaders have repeatedly said discussions about Ukraine should not happen without it, amid concerns the country is being sidelined in negotiations about its own future. Asked if it was his decision to not invite Mr Zelensky to the meeting, Mr Trump said 'no just the opposite', before adding that a second meeting with the Ukrainian president could take place afterwards. 'We had a very good call, he was on the call, President Zelensky was on the call. I would rate it a 10, you know, very, very friendly,' he told reporters in Washington. He added: 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting which will be more productive than the first, because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing.' The US president has previously suggested a truce could involve some 'swapping' of land. It is believed one of the Russian leader's demands is for Ukraine to cede parts of the Donbas region which it still controls. But Mr Zelensky has already rejected any proposal that would compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity, something that is forbidden by the country's constitution. A joint statement from the Coalition of the Willing, which is co-chaired by Sir Keir, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, said 'international borders must not be changed by force'. It added: 'Sanctions and wider economic measures to put pressure on Russia's war economy should be strengthened if Russia does not agree to a ceasefire in Alaska.' The Coalition of the Willing is a European-led effort to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine in the event of truce.


Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Is air conditioning ‘far right?'
If you want to understand what lies behind the rise of Reform and its consistent – indeed, deepening – lead in the polls, I have a suggestion: French air conditioning. To be more specific, if you want to understand the difficulty Reform's opponents have in tackling it and why the party's rise seems inexorable, the row going on at the moment in France over air conditioning offers a guide. The New York Times reports how Marine Le Pen has said, with her typically incisive populist touch in the middle of a heat wave, that if she became president she would introduce a 'major air-conditioning equipment plan' around France. She was backed by an opinion piece in Le Figaro, arguing that 'making our fellow citizens sweat limits learning, reduces working hours and clogs up hospitals.' With its equally typical tone-deaf response, the French left is using the heat wave to campaign against air conditioning. Libération, the left's house newspaper, called air con 'an environmental aberration that must be overcome' because it uses up too much energy. We've all heard the arguments many times. But more than that, as Brits we live in a country where air con is viewed by the authorities as something close to evil. In Florida, aircon is standard in 95 per cent of new homes, as in Australia where 75 per cent of homes have it. In Europe, long considered an aircon backwater by Americans, it is present in 30 per cent of Italian homes and 40 per cent of Spanish houses. And it is entirely normal in hospitals and care homes almost everywhere. Except, of course, in the UK – despite the appalling consequences of this. Last year 496 people died in care homes from heat, with a further 473 dying in hospitals. But there is one argument against aircon I confess to not having come across before, until I read the New York Times report. A French talk show host introduced its debate on Le Pen's proposals by asking, 'Is air-conditioning a far-right thing?' If you want to take advantage of technology to be cool in your own home, you may, it seems, be far right. Forget the fact that modern air-to-air pumps remove much of the green issues around cooling, for some supposed progressives, the very concept of cool air is seen by some as 'far right'. Which brings us to Reform, and also to the protests currently taking place outside asylum hostels and hotels. Because if you insist that wanting cool air is 'far right', you are in the same sphere as those who say that protecting borders is pandering to the far right, and that worrying that your neighbourhood is housing sex offenders and dangerous young men also shows you are far right. You are removing any real meaning from the term by using it to describe mainstream ideas held by tens of millions. And so the more you insist that such ideas are far right, the more you turn your defeat into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Screaming 'far right' at people who want air conditioning won't lead to anyone deciding they would rather sweat in the heat, just as labelling as far right anyone concerned over the influx of asylum seekers in their neighbourhood won't cause them to suddenly take stock and welcome them into the village. Quite the opposite, in fact. Because the more you label politicians who support ideas which are widely popular as 'far right', and the more you attack those who agree with those politicians, the more likely you make it that those you attack will draw the logical conclusion: that those politicians are the ones on their side. And the more their support will grow. But more than that, the more likely you also make it that those who really are far right are able to present themselves as being smeared, because the term has become devoid of real meaning. How is it that such a basic lesson still needs to be learned?