I agree except that I suspect the only options preferable to someone basically doing the same things is so far to the left that it’s not achievable.

That’s not what I’m referring to.

Weird that they’re so obsessed with the labour party when Corbyn has his whole new one

I think the u-turns are symptomatic of someone who doesn’t have strong personal beliefs, which fails to meet the moment. But Liz Truss had strong personal beliefs which were catastrophically wrong. Boris Johnson has strong personal beliefs in enriching his mates and throwing parties. Being a bit wishy washy and middle of the road isn’t good, but it’s so far from deserving of “second least popular PM ever” it’s not even funny.

I am not an expert so am not the person to ask.

In a way it is a child prison with extra syllables, but as I said, my guess is that the OP doesn’t object in principle to a 17 year old being locked up if they commit a serious enough crime.

Truth in political discourse is important. You said something untrue. What you call pedantry I call a commitment to the truth, even if the truth doesn’t fully support me at every turn. You’re happy to fudge the truth as long as the vibes are right: that’s not good enough. The ends don’t justify the means; if you sacrifice truth you lose credibility, if you lose credibility there’s no point even having political debate: you may as well just yell insults.

Condescending

You can’t answer a straight question about the statement you yourself made. I’d have more respect for you if you had just said “no” and doubled down on the lie.

Bootlicker

In my experience, this is most often used to describe someone presenting an inconvenient truth. There’s a simple remedy though: tell the truth. It’ll set you free, as they say.

Why not, instead of wriggling around, answer the question? It’ll only take a tiny amount of movement on your part, and you can still get your main point across, which is that you don’t approve of removing jury trials from that many people. It’ll feel good, I guarantee it. We can agree about something, have tea, and go home happy.

Actually maybe lemonade would be better today.

With respect, while that doesn’t sound good, I don’t think it’s the kind of issue that leads to anything like “universal revulsion”. It’s the kind of thing that incenses politics nerds like us.

I also think “widely expected” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in your last claim.

Simple question for you: after this is enacted, will there or will there not be jury trials in England and Wales?

Railway nationalisation needed new legislation this parliament to enact it. If we’re blaming Starmer for “continuing austerity” (despite what he’s done to reverse it, like lifting the two child benefit cap) and crediting the Tories for rail nationalisation, then I have to ask who’s side we’re on.

It’s one thing when it’s the media doing this kind of mud-dragging, another when it’s the supposed left-wing comments section of Lemmy.

How long will you be supporting your current darling - be that Burnham or someone else, should they get into power? How long will it take you to credit all their successes to someone else, all the failures of the country and the world to them, and focus on the latter to the exclusion of all else?

Is he?

None of your links say jury trials are going to be abolished. They say the proposal is to make some trials currently conducted by a jury judge-only. Is this you repeating your honesty or your reading comprehension?

Not under terrorism laws.

No dispute from me there.

Meanwhile the railways are getting nationalised, we finally have meaningful rental reform, and have stuck to green commitments.

Trial by jury is likely to be abolished

False.

Criminalise property damage

Is already criminal

Anyone can focus on the bad things and write lies. That’s what the media does, and what you’ve done. It’ll be the same with the next guy.

Can’t wait for the media to work their magic on Burnham until he too is universally reviled. It already seems to have started.

Absolutely nothing. He’s not been amazing by any stretch, but his net approval rating is -46, beating Liz Truss at the height of her unpopularity by a mere 1 percentage point. Liz Truss crashed the economy and the entire country knew it, while Starmer has… U-turned on a few things. Generally been a bit milquetoast. Speaks with a nasal voice?

His unpopularity is deeper than Boris Johnson, who was swilling wine with his mates while the rest of us were enjoying the delights of yet another quiz on Zoom, who illegally prorogued parliament to deliberately impede the democratic operation of parliament, ever reached.

And the same will happen to Burnham, and in two years we’ll be going into another general election with the least popular PM ever and the Labour party will again be tearing itself to shreds, and hand the country over to Reform or whatever even more nakedly racist self-consciously obnoxious bile has emerged out of the right wing.

The UK has young offender institutes, which are not, legally speaking, prisons. I would expect someone writing headlines to use the official terminology.

Separately I am assuming that the OP isn’t perturbed by the concept of punishing children (over some threshold age, at least) for crimes, which might include this kind of punishment, but takes issue with the image conjured by the word prison (which may be wrong, and only they can say)

Blame the editor; there’s no such thing, legally speaking.

And we’re arresting those people and putting them in jail, using force to do so where necessary, aren’t we?

I missed the part where all the Nazis did was debate people. I thought they also did some worse things, which maybe the principles I outlined above would permit. Maybe they did some things which are already illegal under UK law.

They are the ones that like to be violent but they absolutely cannot take it.

The communists tried street violence in nazi Germany and the Nazis absolutely did take it. Why are Farage, Lowe and the rest of them all so rabid about the prospect of civil war?

Weak response.