Loophole and Miliband

Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Loophole and Miliband; low pay
Topic Started: Oct 1 2014, 09:00 AM (495 Views)
C-too	Oct 1 2014, 09:00 AM Post #1
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	Miliband to close cheap foreign staff loophole. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-ed-miliband-will-block-cheap-foreign-staff-loophole-if-labour-wins-in-2015-9039194.html



Steve K	Oct 1 2014, 09:16 AM Post #2
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	C-too Oct 1 2014, 09:00 AM Miliband to close cheap foreign staff loophole. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-ed-miliband-will-block-cheap-foreign-staff-loophole-if-labour-wins-in-2015-9039194.html good he goes up a notch in my estimation



RoofGardener	Oct 1 2014, 09:30 AM Post #3
Lord of Plantpots Posts: 3,802 Group: Members Member #85 Joined: Sep 6, 2014	This sounds very reminiscent of the dying days of New Labour. Ministers would announce populist 'policy changes', in the full knowledge that they had no power to actually MAKE those changes. They would grab the headlines for a day or two ... and then when their initiative was overruled by the EU, it would be buried on the back pages. It is not clear whether Milliband has the power - as hypothetical Prime Minister - to stop the abuse of foreign agency staff; the European Union controls that aspect of our laws via the 2011 EU Agency Workers Directive.



C-too	Oct 1 2014, 11:13 AM Post #4
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	"Labour sources said that closing the loophole would not require a change in EU treaties but could be done by a change in the way the UK interprets the Agency Workers Directive".



Rich	Oct 1 2014, 02:18 PM Post #5
Senior Member Posts: 14,463 Group: Members Member #30 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:13 AM "Labour sources said that closing the loophole would not require a change in EU treaties but could be done by a change in the way the UK interprets the Agency Workers Directive". If that is the case then why did they not pursue that avenue when in government?



C-too	Oct 1 2014, 02:55 PM Post #6
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	Rich Oct 1 2014, 02:18 PM C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:13 AM "Labour sources said that closing the loophole would not require a change in EU treaties but could be done by a change in the way the UK interprets the Agency Workers Directive". If that is the case then why did they not pursue that avenue when in government? It was accepted in 2008. (I think NL had enough problems at that time.) It was introduced into practise in 2011. Politicians have now seen it in action for three+ years. Shouldn't it have been this government that should have done something about it? Or did they have enough on their plate with other problems?



RoofGardener	Oct 1 2014, 03:20 PM Post #7
Lord of Plantpots Posts: 3,802 Group: Members Member #85 Joined: Sep 6, 2014	Perhaps the practical reality revealed flaws that where not immediately obvious upon simply reading the text of the law ? It wouldn't be the first time that legislation - especially rushed legislation - has fallen foul of the law of unintended consequences ?



Alberich	Oct 1 2014, 03:57 PM Post #8
Alberich Posts: 1,695 Group: Members Member #8 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Good; if he can. That will depend on our E.U. masters agreeing!



C-too	Oct 1 2014, 04:18 PM Post #9
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	Alberich Oct 1 2014, 03:57 PM Good; if he can. That will depend on our E.U. masters agreeing! If he can he presumably will. If he can't then the EU are in control. It was introduced in the first place to suit Sweden who have a high level of agency workers. Edited by C-too, Oct 1 2014, 04:20 PM.



Stan Still	Oct 1 2014, 05:21 PM Post #10
Regular Member Posts: 1,705 Group: Members Member #23 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	Alberich Oct 1 2014, 03:57 PM Good; if he can. That will depend on our E.U. masters agreeing! First he has to win the GE then see what the EU says, highly unlikely he will be able to deliver and make good his promise



RJD	Oct 1 2014, 06:27 PM Post #11
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Sounds like the EU will have something to say on this. The old sound bite "British jobs for British Workers" in new clothes. As there is a current stated preference for migrant workers over British ones due to a claimed higher work ethic, better education and skills I wonder what bribes Milliband thinks he has to play with?



jeevesnwooster	Oct 1 2014, 06:48 PM Post #12
҈ Posts: 791 Group: Members Member #84 Joined: Sep 6, 2014	RoofGardener Oct 1 2014, 09:30 AM This sounds very reminiscent of the dying days of New Labour. Ministers would announce populist 'policy changes', in the full knowledge that they had no power to actually MAKE those changes. Sad, but absolutely true



Affa	Oct 1 2014, 09:00 PM Post #13
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Oct 1 2014, 06:27 PM As there is a current stated preference for migrant workers over British ones due to a claimed higher work ethic, better education and skills I wonder what bribes Milliband thinks he has to play with? I would call it a propaganda based stated preference, that has little to do with work ethics or skills. It goes completely against that other myth, the one that tells that 'Brits work harder and for more hours a week, with less time off than the rest of Europe".



C-too	Oct 1 2014, 11:13 PM Post #14
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	RJD Oct 1 2014, 06:27 PM Sounds like the EU will have something to say on this. The old sound bite "British jobs for British Workers" in new clothes. As there is a current stated preference for migrant workers over British ones due to a claimed higher work ethic, better education and skills I wonder what bribes Milliband thinks he has to play with? "British jobs for British workers", a comment misinterpreted by the foolishly biased. The biggest problem in the past, both for the country and for employment, has been the lack of skills and education of so many UK school leavers. Education and training was the way to open British jobs for British workers. There was no other way to do it. The problem in this case is the loophole that allows employers to pay lower wages. Edited by C-too, Oct 1 2014, 11:32 PM.



Rich	Oct 1 2014, 11:14 PM Post #15
Senior Member Posts: 14,463 Group: Members Member #30 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:13 PM RJD Oct 1 2014, 06:27 PM Sounds like the EU will have something to say on this. The old sound bite "British jobs for British Workers" in new clothes. As there is a current stated preference for migrant workers over British ones due to a claimed higher work ethic, better education and skills I wonder what bribes Milliband thinks he has to play with? "British jobs for British workers", a comment misinterpreted by the foolishly biased. The biggest problem in the past, both for the country and for employment, has been the lack of skills and education of so many UK school leavers. Education and training was the way to open British jobs for British workers. There was no other way to do it. The problem in this case is the loophole that allows employers to pay below the NMW. Why was there a lack of skills and education?



C-too	Oct 1 2014, 11:22 PM Post #16
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	RoofGardener Oct 1 2014, 09:30 AM This sounds very reminiscent of the dying days of New Labour. Ministers would announce populist 'policy changes', in the full knowledge that they had no power to actually MAKE those changes. They would grab the headlines for a day or two ... and then when their initiative was overruled by the EU, it would be buried on the back pages. It is not clear whether Milliband has the power - as hypothetical Prime Minister - to stop the abuse of foreign agency staff; the European Union controls that aspect of our laws via the 2011 EU Agency Workers Directive. Can you give me a reminder of what NL promised? The Agency Workers Directive was intended to give the workers equal status with full time workers. Because of the high use of agency workers in Sweden they got an amendment to it. That amendment is apparently worded in a way that has provided a loophole which allows agency workers to be paid less. That undermines the very reason the act was set up in the first place. It seems to me the loophole was not the intention of the EU or of the amendment, so change by interpretation seems very much on the cards to me. Edited by C-too, Oct 1 2014, 11:30 PM.



C-too	Oct 1 2014, 11:25 PM Post #17
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	Rich Oct 1 2014, 11:14 PM C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:13 PM RJD Oct 1 2014, 06:27 PM Sounds like the EU will have something to say on this. The old sound bite "British jobs for British Workers" in new clothes. As there is a current stated preference for migrant workers over British ones due to a claimed higher work ethic, better education and skills I wonder what bribes Milliband thinks he has to play with? "British jobs for British workers", a comment misinterpreted by the foolishly biased. The biggest problem in the past, both for the country and for employment, has been the lack of skills and education of so many UK school leavers. Education and training was the way to open British jobs for British workers. There was no other way to do it. The problem in this case is the loophole that allows employers to pay below the NMW. Why was there a lack of skills and education? Because of a very long term problem in education. Not least the introduction of the "Grant Maintaind" schools in the 1980s that flourished while most state schools were starved of funding.



RJD	Oct 2 2014, 07:37 AM Post #18
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:25 PM Rich Oct 1 2014, 11:14 PM C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:13 PM RJD Oct 1 2014, 06:27 PM Sounds like the EU will have something to say on this. The old sound bite "British jobs for British Workers" in new clothes. As there is a current stated preference for migrant workers over British ones due to a claimed higher work ethic, better education and skills I wonder what bribes Milliband thinks he has to play with? "British jobs for British workers", a comment misinterpreted by the foolishly biased. The biggest problem in the past, both for the country and for employment, has been the lack of skills and education of so many UK school leavers. Education and training was the way to open British jobs for British workers. There was no other way to do it. The problem in this case is the loophole that allows employers to pay below the NMW. Why was there a lack of skills and education? Because of a very long term problem in education. Not least the introduction of the "Grant Maintaind" schools in the 1980s that flourished while most state schools were starved of funding. The old excuse. Report after report finds that internationally funding is not the significant factor and the quality of teaching is. Some countries, check for yourself, obtain a much better performance with significantly less funds per pupil. The left have only one solution to all problems and that is "throw money at it" whereas reform is cheaper and more often than not more effective. As I said "spending" is a genetic defect in the Labour body politic, it cannot see further than the size of budgets and until it does I do not see how it can be of use to Britain in the modern World. We need to get more from resources already allocated, that is the way of the right and of businesses across the Planet, they call it "productivity" a word not yet in the Labour Lexicon.



Affa	Oct 2 2014, 10:59 AM Post #19
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	In the mid nineties I was asked, as all parents were, to 'buy a brick' to assist in school building needs. Text books were in short supply, and the transition to computer technological use had not taken place. When it did, it was one or two screens per class ....... teaching assistants, which is another term for employing unqualified teachers, was by now the norm. That all changed, and I recall a Tory MP at PMQ standing to heckle Blair at the despatch box. He was drawing attention to an International report that had placed the UK near the bottom on standards. His shame was when Blair replied tht the study conducted was exclusively done on school leavers in the UK that were educated under the previous Tory government. The reason for this sad situation was a 'minimalist' approach to spending on education.



C-too	Nov 27 2014, 07:50 PM Post #20
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	RJD Oct 2 2014, 07:37 AM C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:25 PM Rich Oct 1 2014, 11:14 PM C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:13 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Why was there a lack of skills and education? Because of a very long term problem in education. Not least the introduction of the "Grant Maintaind" schools in the 1980s that flourished while most state schools were starved of funding. The old excuse. Report after report finds that internationally funding is not the significant factor and the quality of teaching is. Some countries, check for yourself, obtain a much better performance with significantly less funds per pupil. The left have only one solution to all problems and that is "throw money at it" whereas reform is cheaper and more often than not more effective. As I said "spending" is a genetic defect in the Labour body politic, it cannot see further than the size of budgets and until it does I do not see how it can be of use to Britain in the modern World. We need to get more from resources already allocated, that is the way of the right and of businesses across the Planet, they call it "productivity" a word not yet in the Labour Lexicon. The starving of finances for most state school by the Tories achieved nothing. Better working conditions, the replacement of dilapidated exercise books and the introduction of computers were all a resonable and a responsible approach.



somersetli	Nov 27 2014, 08:16 PM Post #21
somersetli Posts: 626 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Never mind buggering about with the interpretation of EU legislation, or altering the time when benefits can be claimed. The fact remains that this country, or indeed any other, must have the right to decide who may come into it, and who may not. That right should never have been relinquished in the first place and if that cannot be amended then we should leave the club.



Affa	Nov 27 2014, 09:23 PM Post #22
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	The evidence here is that it is business, and that does include Government, that has recruited staff from oversea in order to reduce operating costs.



C-too	Nov 27 2014, 09:42 PM Post #23
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	somersetli Nov 27 2014, 08:16 PM Never mind buggering about with the interpretation of EU legislation, or altering the time when benefits can be claimed. The fact remains that this country, or indeed any other, must have the right to decide who may come into it, and who may not. That right should never have been relinquished in the first place and if that cannot be amended then we should leave the club. The "club" did in the past and IMO will in the future be more beneficial to the UK than opting out.



Lewis	Nov 27 2014, 10:21 PM Post #24
Senior Member Posts: 3,478 Group: Members Member #10 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Rich Oct 1 2014, 02:18 PM C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:13 AM "Labour sources said that closing the loophole would not require a change in EU treaties but could be done by a change in the way the UK interprets the Agency Workers Directive". If that is the case then why did they not pursue that avenue when in government? Well your lot promised to cut immigration to 10s of 1000s in 2010 . Nett result is that it had increased no decreased. Scammers was talking a load of BS as per usual.



somersetli	Nov 27 2014, 10:57 PM Post #25
somersetli Posts: 626 Group: Members Member #12 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	C-too Nov 27 2014, 09:42 PM somersetli Nov 27 2014, 08:16 PM Never mind buggering about with the interpretation of EU legislation, or altering the time when benefits can be claimed. The fact remains that this country, or indeed any other, must have the right to decide who may come into it, and who may not. That right should never have been relinquished in the first place and if that cannot be amended then we should leave the club. The "club" did in the past and IMO will in the future be more beneficial to the UK than opting out. Fine, as long as every member country can decide who may enter it and who may not. The "club" is not a country, (much as it likes to consider it is), and the agreement on the right for its club members to wander in and out of the 28 countries at will was an ill conceived idea that should never have been entertained. I have nothing against immigrants or immigration, in fact only two years ago I was seriously ill in hospital where several of the medical and ancillary staff were foreign, and I have nothing but praise for them. That does not alter my opinion though, that any nation should have the right to decide on who, or how many, people they allow to enter their country.



Affa	Nov 27 2014, 11:21 PM Post #26
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	somersetli Nov 27 2014, 10:57 PM I have nothing against immigrants or immigration, in fact only two years ago I was seriously ill in hospital where several of the medical and ancillary staff were foreign, and I have nothing but praise for them. That does not alter my opinion though, that any nation should have the right to decide on who, or how many, people they allow to enter their country. If I can relate this to the supposed Skills shortage that is used as an excuse to defend the number of immigrants being invited in - After decades of a low number of Medical Training places being made available (by government - hence the large number of foreign doctors in the NHS), the last government increased the number of training colleges/places for new doctors. But with the new Eastern European countries joining the EU upwards of a thousand newly qualified doctors each year are unable to find places .......... it is a case of the preferred experience of foreigners over the newly trained doctor. The country is slitting its own throat.



johnofgwent	Nov 28 2014, 02:49 AM Post #27
It .. It is GREEN !! Posts: 7,086 Group: Admins Member #1 Joined: Jun 26, 2014	I'm a little curious Milliband made this gesture back in JANUARY of this year Why did it take Ctoo ten months to comment on it ?



RJD	Nov 28 2014, 08:08 AM Post #28
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	C-too Nov 27 2014, 07:50 PM RJD Oct 2 2014, 07:37 AM C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:25 PM Rich Oct 1 2014, 11:14 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Because of a very long term problem in education. Not least the introduction of the "Grant Maintaind" schools in the 1980s that flourished while most state schools were starved of funding. The old excuse. Report after report finds that internationally funding is not the significant factor and the quality of teaching is. Some countries, check for yourself, obtain a much better performance with significantly less funds per pupil. The left have only one solution to all problems and that is "throw money at it" whereas reform is cheaper and more often than not more effective. As I said "spending" is a genetic defect in the Labour body politic, it cannot see further than the size of budgets and until it does I do not see how it can be of use to Britain in the modern World. We need to get more from resources already allocated, that is the way of the right and of businesses across the Planet, they call it "productivity" a word not yet in the Labour Lexicon. The starving of finances for most state school by the Tories achieved nothing. Better working conditions, the replacement of dilapidated exercise books and the introduction of computers were all a resonable and a responsible approach. The Japanese achieve more with less spent per pupil on education and yes a lot of their buildings are in poor state of repair. Labour do not understand that the quality of education is a function of quality of teaching and little to do with bricks and mortar. For Labour only the size of the spend, investment they call it others see a lot of waste, counts nothing else, reform means absolutely nothing.



Affa	Nov 28 2014, 10:25 AM Post #29
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Minimalism again ......... when has it ever resulted in anything other than lower standards, decay, inefficiency, and an eventual must do overspend?



C-too	Nov 28 2014, 06:19 PM Post #30
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	johnofgwent Nov 28 2014, 02:49 AM I'm a little curious Milliband made this gesture back in JANUARY of this year Why did it take Ctoo ten months to comment on it ? I believe I posted on it when I found out about it. As I seldom read any so called newspapers, that didn't help.



C-too	Nov 28 2014, 06:25 PM Post #31
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	RJD Nov 28 2014, 08:08 AM C-too Nov 27 2014, 07:50 PM RJD Oct 2 2014, 07:37 AM C-too Oct 1 2014, 11:25 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep The old excuse. Report after report finds that internationally funding is not the significant factor and the quality of teaching is. Some countries, check for yourself, obtain a much better performance with significantly less funds per pupil. The left have only one solution to all problems and that is "throw money at it" whereas reform is cheaper and more often than not more effective. As I said "spending" is a genetic defect in the Labour body politic, it cannot see further than the size of budgets and until it does I do not see how it can be of use to Britain in the modern World. We need to get more from resources already allocated, that is the way of the right and of businesses across the Planet, they call it "productivity" a word not yet in the Labour Lexicon. The starving of finances for most state school by the Tories achieved nothing. Better working conditions, the replacement of dilapidated exercise books and the introduction of computers were all a resonable and a responsible approach. The Japanese achieve more with less spent per pupil on education and yes a lot of their buildings are in poor state of repair. Labour do not understand that the quality of education is a function of quality of teaching and little to do with bricks and mortar. For Labour only the size of the spend, investment they call it others see a lot of waste, counts nothing else, reform means absolutely nothing. There are different expectations and different systems in different countries, some with the sort of problems that would not be tollerated in this country. If funding doesn't count in this country why did Thatcher guarantee the funding for the 'Grant Maintained' schools while the rest of the state schools went underfunded?



marybrown	Nov 28 2014, 06:33 PM Post #32
Senior Member Posts: 10,516 Group: Members Member #60 Joined: Jul 27, 2014	C-too Oct 1 2014, 09:00 AM Miliband to close cheap foreign staff loophole. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-ed-miliband-will-block-cheap-foreign-staff-loophole-if-labour-wins-in-2015-9039194.html If Labour wins...must be the operative words.... Actually we are getting more non EU migrant workers.. http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/reports/4-migration-non-eu-nationals Who will be mostly African...



RJD	Nov 28 2014, 06:47 PM Post #33
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	C-too Nov 28 2014, 06:25 PM RJD Nov 28 2014, 08:08 AM C-too Nov 27 2014, 07:50 PM RJD Oct 2 2014, 07:37 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep The starving of finances for most state school by the Tories achieved nothing. Better working conditions, the replacement of dilapidated exercise books and the introduction of computers were all a resonable and a responsible approach. The Japanese achieve more with less spent per pupil on education and yes a lot of their buildings are in poor state of repair. Labour do not understand that the quality of education is a function of quality of teaching and little to do with bricks and mortar. For Labour only the size of the spend, investment they call it others see a lot of waste, counts nothing else, reform means absolutely nothing. There are different expectations and different systems in different countries, some with the sort of problems that would not be tollerated in this country. If funding doesn't count in this country why did Thatcher guarantee the funding for the 'Grant Maintained' schools while the rest of the state schools went underfunded? Always best to invest in that which brings a return is it not? I see no information from you that indicates that the cost per pupil for Grant Maintained was higher or lower than the bog standard Compo.



C-too	Nov 29 2014, 09:19 AM Post #34
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	RJD Nov 28 2014, 06:47 PM C-too Nov 28 2014, 06:25 PM RJD Nov 28 2014, 08:08 AM C-too Nov 27 2014, 07:50 PM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep The Japanese achieve more with less spent per pupil on education and yes a lot of their buildings are in poor state of repair. Labour do not understand that the quality of education is a function of quality of teaching and little to do with bricks and mortar. For Labour only the size of the spend, investment they call it others see a lot of waste, counts nothing else, reform means absolutely nothing. There are different expectations and different systems in different countries, some with the sort of problems that would not be tollerated in this country. If funding doesn't count in this country why did Thatcher guarantee the funding for the 'Grant Maintained' schools while the rest of the state schools went underfunded? Always best to invest in that which brings a return is it not? I see no information from you that indicates that the cost per pupil for Grant Maintained was higher or lower than the bog standard Compo. Have you looked for it? It seems to me you are on a bit of a wriggle, don't like the info so you start asking questions that are irrelevant to the original point. The point is the Conservatives took the better performing schools and funded them properly and allowed the rest to deteriorate in terms of maintenance and equipment. The relevant question is why did they do that if money made no difference?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »