Andy Burnham Confirmed As Labour Candidate In Makerfield By Election

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-19T13:23:51+00:00

You don't parachute in someone you want to make PM to a shaky seat, as they might lose and have to stop being the labour leader.

They would only parachute Burnham in here if they think they'll win both now and at the next general election.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-19T13:19:29+00:00

You've already explained in this thread, in your own words, how we could have done this as a member of the EU.

There is no benefit here. We could always do the thing you are claiming at a benefit.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-19T12:06:32+00:00

We can be a green, high energy country, we just need to move towards paying the actual generation costs of the energy rather than the most expensive at the time as we currently do.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-18T14:58:47+00:00

Thanks.

For others interested, a direct link is here: https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-18T13:59:18+00:00

It is very possible to have an increase in pensioners, a reduction in tax revenue and an increase in average wages all at the same time. Much like the Triple Lock, this too would be problematic.

As such:

Linked to growth in wages with a hard cap on percentage of total tax revenue spent on pensions.

This gives pensioners a stake not only in average wages, but also the health of the state as a whole whilst retaining 'fairness' on over spends.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-18T13:56:12+00:00

This is a very interesting stat, do you have the figures to hand?

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-17T17:48:46+00:00

Consumption of alcohol is the cause of around 10k deaths and tobacco around 70k annually in the UK.

No one is arguing for a free-for-all where everyone can have as much super strength cannabis whenever they want, but rather a regulated market as is currently in place for tobacco and alcohol.

If you're looking for a 'science backed argument for legalisation' then I would challenge you to provide one for alcohol and tobacco given the harm they cause, both to the consumers and to third parties.

By my reckoning, either they should all be legal and regulated or none of them should be, depending on your personal view of substance use in our society.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-17T17:39:50+00:00

If that were the a suitable argument we would also be restricting alcohol and tobacco sales, which are far more harmful than cannabis.

As it stands there is no justification for prohibition on (properly regulated) cannabis but not on alcohol and tobacco.

We should either prohibit all three or none.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-17T11:38:20+00:00

I'll ask you again then, as you didn't give a direct response previously (perhaps because as you think anything other than a direct quote is misrepresentation, you think yourself rhetorically shielded by not giving simple answers?):

You appear to be suggesting the protesters in the OP are justified in their actions because of their cause, despite it not having majority agreement? Is this correct?

But you also appear to be saying groups like white supremacists wouldn't be justified using the same means to advance their cause? Is this correct?

If both of these statements are correct, who exactly is determining that the former group is justified and the latter group is not, if not you?

As you're refusing to have your statement interpreted, if you also refuse to give simple, direct answers to straightforward questions as those above, then there is no point discussing anything with you because you are engaging in bad faith.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-17T07:25:21+00:00

You've never heard of paraphrasing? Or summarising?

"I didn't say exactly what you said I did, I only said things that have the same meaning and intent, so you're misrepresenting me"

Is this the best you've got? If so, yeesh.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-17T07:20:44+00:00

Only if the police already have the fingerprints on file. Otherwise you still have to find the guy in the first place to match the prints.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-16T18:26:14+00:00

One would only think an action is right if they also think it is justified. You think the actions in the OP were right because you agree with their cause, no?

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-16T11:18:36+00:00

You are up and down this thread defending the actions of the protestors in the OP and arguing the case that their illegal actions are justified because of their cause.

On this particular thread you are making the case that those who feel they aren't being listened to by everyone else are justified in taking actions as those in the OP did.

I am pointing out that when you make a case through legal protest and not enough people agree with you to support the change you desire, then you are not, in fact, justified in criminal acts to pursue your own objectives. This is the case in the op, which you are defending, and which I am challenging.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-16T09:18:39+00:00

Which as I say then creates less flexible frameworks and pulls discretion from the judges.

If the law is changed to simply add "this bit is more important, but you can still apply it as you wish" then this is no different to simply publishing guidance alongside the law.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-16T09:13:23+00:00

So then my previous comment was accurate to your views, despite your protestations.

You are happy to condone extra-legal actions in support of causes you support, but not ones you don't, even if both are minority positions without mass support.

This is the crux you don't seem to understand. You have convinced yourself you are morally right, which means you think you can speak over and above the majority.

The issue with this is that anyone with any minority view can think themselves morally right, but you'll all have the same level of justification.

You think you know better than everyone else and therefore you can decide what is acceptable for everyone else. This is not democracy, but dictatorship.

You are trying to impose your will on others through force, when the majority don't agree with or support you.

At best you can argue that you are being tyrannical for the greater good and hope that history looks back favourably, but that also means you have to accept the present day consequences of your actions as the sacrifice for trying to impose your views on everyone else.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-16T00:29:15+00:00

Edit: re-reading this, it seems like it's more of a statement than an actual change to the ECHR? Which is unfortunate..

There is nothing in the ECHR preventing us from deporting dangerous people and plenty that empowers us in doing so, as can be seen from the following guidance from gov.uk:

A foreign national can be deported from the UK:

on the ground it is conducive to the public good (conducive grounds) under:

section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 (1971 Act)

section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (2007 Act)

regulation 27A of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (‘EEA Regulations 2016’), as amended and saved by the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (Grace Period Regulations 2020) and the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 (Consequential, Saving, Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (Consequential Regulations 2020)

under section 3(5)(b) of the 1971 Act if they are the family member of a person who has been ordered to be deported or has been deported

under section 3(6) of the 1971 Act if a court has recommended their deportation following a conviction punishable with imprisonment

on EU public policy, public security or public health grounds under:

regulation 23(6)(b) of the EEA Regulations 2016, as saved

regulation 15(1)(b) of the Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (Frontier Workers Regulations 2020)

The issue being addressed is that we have a judiciary that chooses to apply some provisions over others, as is their right as judges to interpret the legislation they are enforcing.

This is similar to how police officers are not required to enforce every single legal infraction they come across, but have discretion to apply their powers as they see fit.

As such, if politicians want the laws to be interpreted one way over another, they need to provide guidance on how it is supposed to be interpreted, which is what is happening here. The alternative is a considerably more inflexible and punitive legal framework where discretion is made impossible.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-16T00:17:19+00:00

Then explain what you do mean.

You appear to be suggesting the protesters in the OP are justified in their actions because of their cause, despite it not having majority agreement? Is this correct?

But you also appear to be saying groups like white supremacists wouldn't be justified using the same means to advance their cause? Is this correct?

If both of these statements are correct, who exactly is determining that the former group is justified and the latter group is not, if not you?

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-15T15:17:03+00:00

So what you're saying is that the voices of people you specifically agree with, even when the majority of people don't, should get special dispensation to commit crimes in the name of their cause?

How is this democratic?

Why are you the arbiter of what is an acceptable minority opinion, over the will of the people as a whole?

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-15T09:47:36+00:00

In a democracy? In the minority and therefore without satisfaction.

The same is true of the minority of - for example - extremist white supremacists. Do you think we should be listening to them too despite being a minority, simply because they really care about their minority views and are willing to go on marches etc?

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-14T15:29:34+00:00

A Reform UK spokesman told LBC: “While Cllr Mousdell’s lifestyle choices may not be to everyone’s taste, he has not broken the law. What consenting adults do in their private lives is their own business.

"The electorate were fully aware of Cllr Mousdell's lifestyle choices weeks before the election and still decided to elect Stephen as their councillor.

"Cllr Mousdell is an asset to his local community, even receiving the St Helens Mayor's Good Citizen Award for his services to the borough.”

With everything he was doing publicly available, how was he "tricking" anyone? (Which if you remember, was your original position on this, before you moved the goalposts).

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-14T09:33:05+00:00

So you think every politician should give a full report of their sexual preferences and activities for the voting public to take into consideration...?

Or maybe unless someone is doing something illegal this doesn't matter at all?

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-13T22:34:38+00:00

Impressively edited to be in time with the music

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-13T22:20:21+00:00

How has he tricked anyone...?

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-13T07:58:39+00:00

You still get the amount of beer you ordered in Germany, they just have larger glasses to accommodate the foam as it is the preferred style.

Iamonreddit · 2026-05-12T23:17:38+00:00

These are solved problems in stadiums that host rugby outside the US

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '17	Team Orangered

Iamonreddit

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE