No sooner did Vox Political publish a video clip explaining how political parties make misleading claims to hoodwink voters into supporting them than Nigel Farage provided a prime example.
The Reform UK leader has launched an attack on a new UK-India free trade agreement, claiming it makes it 20 per cent cheaper for UK firms to employ Indian workers instead of people from the United Kingdom — a claim that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have echoed.
Here he is, saying it:
But be warned: there’s not a lot of truth to this claim
Help fund great articles! We’re aiming for £50 to cover research and reporting time this week.
Can you chip in £3 today?
👉 https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
At the heart of the dispute is a provision in the trade deal extending the double contribution convention, which prevents workers on short-term visas from paying social security (National Insurance Contributions, or NICs) in both the country they work in and their home country.
The UK has similar agreements with more than 50 other countries, including the United States, EU nations, and South Korea.
The exemption applies only to inter-company transfers of professionals between the UK and India — for up to three years, extended from a previous one-year period.
In other words, an Indian professional sent by an Indian company to work in its UK office under this agreement would not pay NICs here though they would still pay UK income tax and the NHS immigration surcharge.
This does not apply to Indian nationals applying for general UK jobs or permanent employment.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
What are Farage and the other critics saying?
Farage, Kemi Badenoch, and Daisy Cooper have argued that this could undercut British workers by making Indian staff “20 per cent cheaper” to hire — especially after recent rises in UK employer NICs.
The Indian government itself has called the exemption a “huge win,” claiming it will make Indian service providers more competitive in the UK.
Badenoch, notably, said she rejected this trade-off when she was trade secretary because she believed it would result in “two-tier taxes” and cost the UK “hundreds of millions.”
She points out that while the UK has similar arrangements with other countries, those often involve reciprocal flows of UK workers — which is less balanced with India.
Get my free guide: “10 Political Lies You Were Sold This Decade” — just subscribe to our email list here:
👉 https://voxpoliticalonline.com
What does the Government Say?
Labour ministers argue the criticism misrepresents the deal.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insists the exemption is limited and targeted: it only applies to seconded employees, who still pay income tax and health surcharges and do not get access to UK benefit systems.
Labour claims that Indian nationals applying for UK-based jobs — that is, those competing directly in the domestic labour market — would not benefit from the NIC exemption.
They also argue that the broader deal will provide a nearly £5 billion annual boost to the UK economy, create jobs, raise wages, and lower consumer prices — and that critics are ignoring this wider economic gain.
So, is it 20 per cent cheaper to employ an Indian?
The picture is more complicated than Farage’s claim suggests.
For inter-company transfers under the trade deal, the NIC exemption could indeed reduce costs — possibly by up to around 13–20 per cent, depending on the employer’s NIC obligations — but this applies only to a narrow set of workers.
For general hiring of Indian nationals in the UK job market, there is no such cost reduction.
The deal does not broadly make it cheaper for all UK businesses to hire Indian workers over British workers.
In short, Farage’s statement simplifies and stretches the issue — painting a limited, technical provision as a sweeping undercutting of UK labour.
Help fund great articles! We’re aiming for £50 to cover research and reporting time this week.
Can you chip in £3 today?
👉 https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Why does it matter?
The debate over this trade deal exposes bigger political divides: about the fairness of global trade, the protection of domestic workers, and the fine print of international agreements.
While Farage and Reform UK position themselves as defenders of British workers against a globalist Labour government, Labour frames the deal as a pragmatic boost to UK businesses and consumers.
What’s clear is that the truth sits somewhere in the middle — and voters deserve a careful, fact-based conversation rather than soundbite claims.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Farage’s ‘20% cheaper’ Indian worker claim: what’s true – and what’s not
No sooner did Vox Political publish a video clip explaining how political parties make misleading claims to hoodwink voters into supporting them than Nigel Farage provided a prime example.
The Reform UK leader has launched an attack on a new UK-India free trade agreement, claiming it makes it 20 per cent cheaper for UK firms to employ Indian workers instead of people from the United Kingdom — a claim that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have echoed.
Here he is, saying it:
But be warned: there’s not a lot of truth to this claim
Help fund great articles! We’re aiming for £50 to cover research and reporting time this week.
Can you chip in £3 today?
👉 https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
At the heart of the dispute is a provision in the trade deal extending the double contribution convention, which prevents workers on short-term visas from paying social security (National Insurance Contributions, or NICs) in both the country they work in and their home country.
The UK has similar agreements with more than 50 other countries, including the United States, EU nations, and South Korea.
The exemption applies only to inter-company transfers of professionals between the UK and India — for up to three years, extended from a previous one-year period.
In other words, an Indian professional sent by an Indian company to work in its UK office under this agreement would not pay NICs here though they would still pay UK income tax and the NHS immigration surcharge.
This does not apply to Indian nationals applying for general UK jobs or permanent employment.
Buy Cruel Britannia in print here. Buy the Cruel Britannia ebook here. Or just click on the image!
What are Farage and the other critics saying?
Farage, Kemi Badenoch, and Daisy Cooper have argued that this could undercut British workers by making Indian staff “20 per cent cheaper” to hire — especially after recent rises in UK employer NICs.
The Indian government itself has called the exemption a “huge win,” claiming it will make Indian service providers more competitive in the UK.
Badenoch, notably, said she rejected this trade-off when she was trade secretary because she believed it would result in “two-tier taxes” and cost the UK “hundreds of millions.”
She points out that while the UK has similar arrangements with other countries, those often involve reciprocal flows of UK workers — which is less balanced with India.
Get my free guide: “10 Political Lies You Were Sold This Decade” — just subscribe to our email list here:
👉 https://voxpoliticalonline.com
What does the Government Say?
Labour ministers argue the criticism misrepresents the deal.
Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds insists the exemption is limited and targeted: it only applies to seconded employees, who still pay income tax and health surcharges and do not get access to UK benefit systems.
Labour claims that Indian nationals applying for UK-based jobs — that is, those competing directly in the domestic labour market — would not benefit from the NIC exemption.
They also argue that the broader deal will provide a nearly £5 billion annual boost to the UK economy, create jobs, raise wages, and lower consumer prices — and that critics are ignoring this wider economic gain.
So, is it 20 per cent cheaper to employ an Indian?
The picture is more complicated than Farage’s claim suggests.
For inter-company transfers under the trade deal, the NIC exemption could indeed reduce costs — possibly by up to around 13–20 per cent, depending on the employer’s NIC obligations — but this applies only to a narrow set of workers.
For general hiring of Indian nationals in the UK job market, there is no such cost reduction.
The deal does not broadly make it cheaper for all UK businesses to hire Indian workers over British workers.
In short, Farage’s statement simplifies and stretches the issue — painting a limited, technical provision as a sweeping undercutting of UK labour.
Help fund great articles! We’re aiming for £50 to cover research and reporting time this week.
Can you chip in £3 today?
👉 https://ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
Why does it matter?
The debate over this trade deal exposes bigger political divides: about the fairness of global trade, the protection of domestic workers, and the fine print of international agreements.
While Farage and Reform UK position themselves as defenders of British workers against a globalist Labour government, Labour frames the deal as a pragmatic boost to UK businesses and consumers.
What’s clear is that the truth sits somewhere in the middle — and voters deserve a careful, fact-based conversation rather than soundbite claims.
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (bottom right of the home page). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical
3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com
5) Follow Vox Political writer Mike Sivier on BlueSky
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Cruel Britannia is available
in either print or eBook format here:
The Livingstone Presumption is available
in either print or eBook format here:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
you might also like
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry
Osborne wants a ‘year of hard truths’. Here’s one: He’s HIDING the truth