Elected a Labour government, innit.

Very true. Also worth noting that they all won election on the policy of not repealing the limit. It's not like this came out of left field!

I agree with the people here that there aren't any.

The closest to a 'good reason' is that some people want certain policy outcomes that Trump has promised, not all of which are in and of themselves morally wrong. What's wrong is that they believe that the ends justify the means, which they quite famously do not.

Real (I assume you mean proven) conspiracies start off as theories.

No, they don't. Conspiracy theories are not 'theories about conspiracies'. You are both misusing the term 'conspiracy theory' and wrongly describing the Tuskegee experiment as a conspiracy, which it never was. One of the people who originally called it out did so after reading about it in a published scientific paper! The pereptrators of that 'experiment' lied to the participants, but they were not otherwise secretive, otherwise they wouldn't have been writing and publishing papers about it.

Fuck off

I'm not going to discuss this further with someone who cannot do so civilly.

The Tuskegee Experiment was not a conspiracy theory. So, in that sense you're right.

Conspiracy theories and theorists are homogenous: the flawed thinking is inherent to the concept. Conspiracy theories are untrue by definition, and nothing to do with real conspiracies.

We had a few evac chairs, but I think you needed training to use them and I never had the training!

I may have pretended to do this as a joke once or twice.

No, it isn't. He's a conspiracy theorist. Voting for him is endorsing conspiracy theorists.

I used to work in a school with disabled kids, so I did a few fire drills.

As other people here have said, there are areas like stairwells where the kids with mobility issues waited (with adults, of course!) during fire alarms. Fire crews would've been told about us and come and got those kids first in the event of an actual emergency.

RFK is less coherent than Biden politically and intellectually, which is what matters.

OP has given us no info about the candidates they're considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There's no merit to encouraging RFK's views, so Biden should be OP's choice.

Please explain why it should be given to anyone else.

No. Vote Biden.

If you can spare the time or money, volunteer and donate to the campaign in places they can actually win.

EDIT: Also, vote Democrat if there are any other elections going on at the same time. If Trump does win, the only chance of holding him to any kind of account is to have as many Democrats in positions of power as possible.

Sincerely, someone who can't vote in your elections but still lives with the knock-on effects!

Don't forget solar panels.

It is pure nimbyism. There have already been consultations which showed other options would be more expensive and slower, but also more environmentally destructive than pylons. Ramsay - the Green's co-leader - doesn't like the result of the consultations so deploying the classic nimby tactic of demanding more consultations.

There is really only one electoral strategy for them and it's the mirror image of the best strategy for Labour: chase the people they lost to their left. The risk of losing voters to Reform is real, but it will be mitigated by winning over the voters they most need: Labour and Lib Dem voters.

For the Tories in particular, this is the best strategy not only electorally, but morally. They should not be normalising the toxicity of Reform by chasing the mix of fantasists, conspiracists and racists that make up Farage's fan club. Even as a Labour voter who would never consider voting Conservative, I see the fact that some Conservatives have already started speaking out against the two-child benefit cap, the housing crisis and the dropping of net zero targets, as an encouraging sign.

the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC) is “no longer simply a public service department” but an “economic growth department”, because health and the economy are “inextricably linked” and improving the health of the nation can help to “drive the economic growth of the country”.

“That is a major shift in mindset,” he said. “It’s a rethinking of the role of the department.

“It also means ending the begging bowl culture, where the only interaction the Treasury has with DHSC is that we need more money for X, Y and Z.

“The starting point has got to be, ‘We will help you achieve your mission for growth and improve the prosperity and lives of everyone in this country by making sure that we are with you lockstep in driving growth’.”

This is quite interesting, if I'm understanding it right. Historically, the focus has been 'What can we do that's cheap in the short-term?', but switching it to 'What can we do that will be promote growth in the long term?' is a genuine shift that might make the NHS (and the state as a whole) cheaper and more effective. It's at least worth a try, I think.

It also fits neatly with the overall aims of the government in terms of using the state to promote economic growth. Angela Rayner was making similar arguments about justice and mental health just before the election: that investing in those things now will save money in the long term. You can make the same argument about housing and green energy. This seems to be part of the same driving concept.

Most people everywhere are very politically unaware. Here's a decent site that demonstrates this. Basically, the knowledge we (by which I mean humans, not just Americans, of which I am not one) have leads us to make inaccurate assumptions about the other stuff.

No, now I'm old and don't smoke anymore, but my mind still does this stuff to me anyway.

Along with appointing Timpson to the Prisons brief, this is another really good sign of a government that cares more about getting things done than vibes. Although, the vibes are good, too!