In fairness, speaking the language is a reasonable bare minimum to obtain permanent residence and certainly a must citizenship in any countries.
AFAiK, in most European countries obtaining permanent residence requires at least 5 years of continued residence in the country so it is also a bad look in term of effort to integrate if a person still can't speak the language (maybe not perfectly but at least "good enough") after all that time.
This is true. In many places you can't install the outdoor unit on the street-facing side of the building without approval, and you won't get it in most cases, and this is indeed in addition to getting approval from your building's residents association if you live in a flat.
That's not true. Temperature above 30C are the norm in summer in Southern Europe (which means quite higher in the Sun and in a heat trap location). Now, yes 40C isn't.
But I am unconvinced that AC manufacturers have different "sizing"... An AC unit is for hot places and the outdoor unit may be in a very hot spots with ambient easily above 40C.
Edit: Yes, AC systems for a whole building are different but still the system on the roof experiences the full Sun and very hot conditions, this isn't the issue. Perhaps they simply badly designed it so that it hasn't got the capacity to cool the whole building when it's actually hot so they prioritised (actually now I get that this is what you meant). Obviously it is easier to blame "weather conditions"...
Zero hours contracts were never banned in the UK and in fact have been restricted over the years and debate is still ongoing on whether to ban them altogether.
We have diverged significantly from my original point...
> Those legal protections are easily eroded without unions.
That's very clearly not true based on the situation in Western Europe, in fact legal rights tend to keep increasing even when union membership is decreasing (e.g. UK, France).
As said, jobs and society as a whole have evolved and noone can be elected in government by promising to take away important protections, what they can be elected on is promising to curb union power but that the unions' fault when they abuse striking action.
My understanding is that workers are extremely well protected in Finland and what's happened is only some restrictions on political and solidarity strikes.
Edit: Unions are not the only defense that workers have. We have democracy with all sides represented and nowadays (in Europe at least) more is done through elections than through unions. That's why I said that society had changed compared to the early days of the labour movement.
The fact that unions played a big role in the past does not imply that they are as important now because of the changes in legal protection, types of jobs, and society.
In Western Europe workers are very protected so unless you are in a low end job or specific public sector job and might gain from collective wage bargaining there is often little actual benefits in being in a union, taking into account that membership isn't free.
His 2010 leadership bid was very much on the left and now he is clearly pitching on the left, too. It may not be the furthest left but it is very left nonetheless and John McDonnell's support is not random. ot sure what's controversial or "deranged nonsense" there, strange...
Obviously we shall see what he actually does if he becomes PM.
Police has no choice but to arrest people who commit a serious criminal offence on purpose and very publicly. It would undermine their credibility and the rule of law not to arrest them.
This is orthogonal with how police should tackle the violence you mention.
Edit in response to @pjc50's replay below:
The signs are a serious criminal offence. Supporting a proscribed terror organisation is a serious criminal offence according to the law and arrest is unavoidable.
Edit 2: What constitutes a "serious criminal offence" is not subjective based on one's personal opinion, it is what the law defines as such...
They did that on purpose, though: Palestine Action has been banned on the basis of being a "terror organisation", this means that supporting them is a criminal offence. Knowing that, they purposedly propested by holding signs saying that they supported Palestine Action... and therefore they were arrested as expected (and really the police has no choice in such cases not to undermine the rule of law).
Note what the Court of Appeal said when ruling that the ban on terror grounds was legal:
[It was] "a fundamental mistake to overlook the fact that Palestine Action overtly promotes unlawful violence amounting to terrorism. It is not - as claimed - a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, operating transparently in the open. It is a covert organisation which operates with secret cells to avoid the detection and prosecution of those using violence to destroy property and cause injury. " [1]
Agree with your first sentence but he is described as being on the very left wing of the party and, if he becomes PM, it will be with the support of the left wing, not the blairites.
You make it sound like "distinct budgets" means unlimited resources... Obviously this is not true and is just an accounting and management tool to allocate limited resources. Hence my previous comment.
Note that I did not claim that we shouldn't invest in train networks. I questioned the use of taxpayers' money to make train tickets extremely cheap or free when there is no affordability issue to begin with, both in itself and when compared to everything else that public money could be spent on, and the overall situation in many European countries.
Personally I think this is having our priorities very wrong.
(I also think that rail as a primary mean of transport over roads is totally unrealistic and impractical, but that another issue)
That's a fallacious argument because roads are the universal, basic transportation infrastructure. You cannot have no roads. Your point has some relevance regarding motorways, which are not free in every countries and may be considered part of the universal road network, too. So mentioning the cost of roads is trying to deflect via "whataboutism" without addressing the point.
> "the resources are created by the structure commercialising the service"
So you mean selling tickets, not subsidies?
Building railways and operating rail services cost money, a lot of it, actually. Is it a good allocation of resources, especially taxpayers' money, to make it free/almost free when people can afford to pay for it via tickets and funding/investments are needed elsewhere and (as the case may be) public finances are in a bad shape?
That's the way it is. Resources are always finite and thus there is always an issue with allocating them.
AFAiK, in most European countries obtaining permanent residence requires at least 5 years of continued residence in the country so it is also a bad look in term of effort to integrate if a person still can't speak the language (maybe not perfectly but at least "good enough") after all that time.