The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[limpid]

3 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Let’s be honest, it might not be such an amazing aspiration to move to the UK for much of the EU when they can move to countries like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany +++ and not have to deal with Nigel Farage calling them dirty immigrants and completely without any red tape stopping them in the internal market.

Unless you want to go to Belgium where he (allegedly) is resident for tax purposes, while the rest of his family have German passports.

But we're heading off topic.

[Danwichmann]

3 hours ago, LondonLax said:

It’s the language. Many people looking to move for better wages see the UK as their first option because they already know English to a certain degree. The language barrier makes it much tougher to move to those other countries you mentioned. Nigel Farage is not a factor, all those other countries also have their own versions of Nigal Farage making the same sorts of claims he does. 

I always thought that but whenever I try to explain to someone that it's because of the language, it turns out I'm wrong and it's because we give all immigrants loads of free money and houses for doing nothing.

[magnkarl]

9 hours ago, LondonLax said:

It’s the language. Many people looking to move for better wages see the UK as their first option because they already know English to a certain degree. The language barrier makes it much tougher to move to those other countries you mentioned. Nigel Farage is not a factor, all those other countries also have their own versions of Nigal Farage making the same sorts of claims he does. 

Is it?

Having studied some Nordic languages to get a basic understanding I almost get annoyed at how even if I try to speak their languages to them when I'm there they just flip to English, most often to a much greater degree than people I've met in for example Southampton.

Edited June 24 by magnkarl

[LondonLax]

54 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Is it?

Having studied some Nordic languages to get a basic understanding I almost get annoyed at how even if I try to speak their languages to them when I'm there they just flip to English, most often to a much greater degree than people I've met in for example Southampton.

I live in Sweden. Most speak English well here but in the majority of fields you need to be able to speak Swedish yourself to be permanently employed. It’s a pretty tough job market to break into compared with the U.K.

You do get a bit of a shadow economy with non Swedish speakers being employed on short term contracts etc or in the gig economy where you don’t need the language but your chances of getting proper employment is much higher in the U.K.  

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

I live in Sweden. Most speak English well here but in the majority of fields you need to be able to speak Swedish yourself to be permanently employed. It’s a pretty tough job market to break into compared with the U.K.

You do get a bit of a shadow economy with non Swedish speakers being employed on short term contracts etc or in the gig economy where you don’t need the language but your chances of getting proper employment is much higher in the U.K.  

But isn't the case in companies in tech\bio\defense etc. that engineers often use English as their spoken tongue even at work?

I remember going to the Saab factory in 2006 or so and I was perplexed that the Swedes spoke English to each other to incorporate the British\Japanese\South Korean engineers who also worked there.

Sorry, this is quite off topic.

[Wainy316]

Labour's manifesto seems to have the least spending commitments out of all the main parties but seems to receiving the most criticism as not adding up 

[chrisp65]

39 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

Labour's manifesto seems to have the least spending commitments out of all the main parties but seems to receiving the most criticism as not adding up 

Don’t question it, vote and make a wish.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Don’t question it, vote and make a wish.

That's somewhat the opposite of the point that is being made here.

The point (if I'm reading it correctly) is that of all the fiscal bodies that have examined the manifestos of the major parties, Labour's spending commitments are the least yet despite that, it is the one facing the most criticism from other parties and the media

[sidcow]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

That's somewhat the opposite of the point that is being made here.

The point (if I'm reading it correctly) is that of all the fiscal bodies that have examined the manifestos of the major parties, Labour's spending commitments are the least yet despite that, it is the one facing the most criticism from other parties and the media

Possibly because everyone knows it's the only policy that's actually going to have to deliver? 

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

But isn't the case in companies in tech\bio\defense etc. that engineers often use English as their spoken tongue even at work?

I remember going to the Saab factory in 2006 or so and I was perplexed that the Swedes spoke English to each other to incorporate the British\Japanese\South Korean engineers who also worked there.

Sorry, this is quite off topic.

Yes, certain industries have English as the working language, usually hi-tech international industries, IT programmers will work in English for example.

Anything service related or government related, the medical/care industry for example, you must have proficient Swedish as a hiring criteria. 

For everything between, if a workplace language is in Swedish an employer will be reluctant to hire a non native speaker and change the dynamic in the workplace, forcing the rest of the team to switch to their second language. It is up to a potential employee to demonstrate their local language proficiency. 

[chrisp65]

28 minutes ago, bickster said:

That's somewhat the opposite of the point that is being made here.

The point (if I'm reading it correctly) is that of all the fiscal bodies that have examined the manifestos of the major parties, Labour's spending commitments are the least yet despite that, it is the one facing the most criticism from other parties and the media

As it’s currently being pitched, it’s pretty much a choice of record breaking growth (with no plan on how that happens) to fund nice things like a health service, or a return to austerity.

Asking Wes Streeting to explain how he’s going to fix the dental health crisis with 10% of the money the Nuffield Trust says he needs to do that, is where the sums and promises don’t tally. I think it’s perfectly fair to scrutinise how he’ll improve things. We all know the tories won’t so their plan really doesn’t need any scrutiny.

 

 

[bickster]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

As it’s currently being pitched, it’s pretty much a choice of record breaking growth (with no plan on how that happens) to fund nice things like a health service, or a return to austerity.

Asking Wes Streeting to explain how he’s going to fix the dental health crisis with 10% of the money the Nuffield Trust says he needs to do that, is where the sums and promises don’t tally. I think it’s perfectly fair to scrutinise how he’ll improve things. We all know the tories won’t so their plan really doesn’t need any scrutiny.

 

 

That's fairy nuff but has nothing to do with the question asked

The question being asked is why are none of the others receiving the same level of attention

[bickster]

46 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Possibly because everyone knows it's the only policy that's actually going to have to deliver? 

I think that may be part of the answer

[numbersix]

22 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

As it’s currently being pitched, it’s pretty much a choice of record breaking growth (with no plan on how that happens) to fund nice things like a health service, or a return to austerity.

Asking Wes Streeting to explain how he’s going to fix the dental health crisis with 10% of the money the Nuffield Trust says he needs to do that, is where the sums and promises don’t tally. I think it’s perfectly fair to scrutinise how he’ll improve things. We all know the tories won’t so their plan really doesn’t need any scrutiny.

 

 

Wonder where Wes will get the money from ... https://www.thenational.scot/news/24250557.wes-streeting-takes-175k-donors-linked-private-health-firms/

Quote

LABOUR shadow health secretary Wes Streeting has continued to accept tens of thousands of pounds from donors with links to private healthcare while advocating for the NHS to pay private firms for use of their resources, the Sunday National can reveal.

 

[Chindie]

2 hours ago, Wainy316 said:

Labour's manifesto seems to have the least spending commitments out of all the main parties but seems to receiving the most criticism as not adding up 

Why would you devote much time to critiquing the Monster Racing Loony Party's economic plans? 

Everyone knows the election is an extended coronation for Labour, so there's more focus on what they're saying, because it's what they're selling and what is expected to be bought and delivered. And it doesn't add up. I.e. they're lying. Which is a wonderful position to get off the blocks with a new government, a marriage on false pretences.

The fact of the matter is either Labour need to spend money, which means taxes up and borrowing up, or they can't deliver improvements and we accept that, in which case what's the **** difference?

[chrisp65]

24 minutes ago, bickster said:

That's fairy nuff but has nothing to do with the question asked

The question being asked is why are none of the others receiving the same level of attention

This is pure speculation on my part, but I’d guess it’s because nobody can see options for the outcome of the election, other than the size of the Labour majority. As such, they are currently the government in waiting. So the more they can be questioned now, the more there are metrics to judge them against from Monday July 8th onwards (Wes’s choice of date).

There are a limited number of parties standing in sufficient seats to even in theory gain a majority. I don’t think anyone imagines that Reform, Green, or the LibDems are getting a majority so their figurework can get a lighter touch. I haven’t seen many people predicting a tory victory.

I can’t imagine there’s a large demographic of undecided swing voters who after 14 years, are undecided on the tories and waiting to see their workings out for their figurework on their plans for the future.

Asking Labour questions about their figurework sort of lures them away from their current campaign slogan of ‘Change and Stability’.

 

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

This is pure speculation on my part, but I’d guess it’s because nobody can see options for the outcome of the election, other than the size of the Labour majority. As such, they are currently the government in waiting. So the more they can be questioned now, the more there are metrics to judge them against from Monday July 8th onwards (Wes’s choice of date).

There are a limited number of parties standing in sufficient seats to even in theory gain a majority. I don’t think anyone imagines that Reform, Green, or the LibDems are getting a majority so their figurework can get a lighter touch. I haven’t seen many people predicting a tory victory.

I can’t imagine there’s a large demographic of undecided swing voters who after 14 years, are undecided on the tories and waiting to see their workings out for their figurework on their plans for the future.

Asking Labour questions about their figurework sort of lures them away from their current campaign slogan of ‘Change and Stability’.

 

Sort of agree, sort of disagree. I certainly think the Tory and LibDem manifestos should get the same level of scrutiny, which they aren't

[ml1dch]

19 hours ago, limpid said:

To remove all the customs controls would require regulatory alignment. Everything we make or grow will have to be within the EU regulations.

This isn't quite true. Customs controls have little to do with regulatory standards. 

Turkey and the EU share a common external tariff, but Turkey are still free to follow whatever standards they wish. But outside the Single Market and the EU's regulatory ecosystem goods that enter that ecosystem, while not subject to customs controls will still be checked to ensure that they meet the necessary standards. 

In reality, we're likely to have harmonised everything and signed up for all sorts of dynamic regulatory alignment to try and bodge things into working long before we get to any talk of common external tariffs, but there's nothing stopping us from having a shared CET while employing whatever differing standards that we want. 

[limpid]

46 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

This isn't quite true. Customs controls have little to do with regulatory standards. 

Turkey and the EU share a common external tariff, but Turkey are still free to follow whatever standards they wish. But outside the Single Market and the EU's regulatory ecosystem goods that enter that ecosystem, while not subject to customs controls will still be checked to ensure that they meet the necessary standards. 

In reality, we're likely to have harmonised everything and signed up for all sorts of dynamic regulatory alignment to try and bodge things into working long before we get to any talk of common external tariffs, but there's nothing stopping us from having a shared CET while employing whatever differing standards that we want. 

The post I was replying to said:

Quote

No more customs controls on imports/export goods

As you said, there will be customs controls to assure that goods are compliant, unless there is regulatory alignment.

[ml1dch]

10 minutes ago, limpid said:

As you said, there will be customs controls to assure that goods are compliant, unless there is regulatory alignment.

His statement is technically correct. To remove all the customs controls, you just need to be within a shared customs area, you don't need regulatory alignment to remove them. You do need it (and a load of other stuff besides, it's not enough to just do the alignment thing) to remove the myriad other checks, as you allude to.

If he meant it in a broader "no more checks of any kind" sense then yes, that would be wrong, but I'm not necessarily sure that he did. 

If you're just using "customs controls" as internet shorthand for "all the checks that might happen when a product moves from territory A to territory B" then cool, we're on the same page.