£350m a week for the NHS lie finally bites the dust

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Elections are won on that very basis
    So why contradict yourself?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As an American, I'm curious. Did President Obama's speech about "back of the line" affect the outcome of the referendum? And what do you guys feel was the primary reason for leaving the EU? Was it the TTIP trade deal? Or mainly immigration and the refugee issue?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Yeah, it was just an idea that they liked. It's not direct lying as it could be possible to spend the money on the NHS and they never said explicitly that a new government would definitely spend the money on the NHS. There's nothing wrong with what they said.
    If you vet much give the intention that you will do something and repeat that intention time and time again even though you have not actual intention of ever doing it then it is wrong.

    The 350 million to the NHS was the hallmark of their campaign. It was repeated time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.

    Now all of a sudden just a couple of months later it was only just an idea or a suggestion and that we have no right to expect them to follow through with something which they very much and purposely gave the idea that they would follow through with?*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I do not have an opinion on the NHS.
    I don't believe that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political tactics - they will look to raise funding at the next election not now. Rather than edge funding up year by year they will let it get further and further behind and then pledge at the next election to increase £350m a week (from a lower base) as a political tool.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Barely anybody voted on the basis of the £350 million a week. In fact by the time the vote came hardly anybody even believed it, if they even did in the first place (unlikely). It appears a lot of you lot hardly know any Leave voters at all.

    What you've got to understand is that most people see campaigns for what they are: promotion guff that is best ignored. I mean how many Remain voters genuinely believed the nonsense that was coming out of the Remain campaign? In fact most Remain voters I know (including myself) didn't. Probably you didn't either if you've much semblance of intelligence. You might not want to believe it, but most people have functioning brains so don't take any political campaign seriously. I think you'll find that for the most part whoever voted Leave and Remain respectively would have voted these ways before the campaigns even started. As a matter of fact, I bet you most people were annoyed at the campaigns of their own sides for discrediting their positions.

    I know you guys like to think it's impossible for people to look at an issue and think another from you unless they're stupid and brainwashed but it doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Your egos will just have to get used to it if you're going to make any progress in getting your views properly listed to and respected. Otherwise, expect more of the same. I mean obviously the £350 figure was nonsense so give people besides yourselves some credit for a change.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Barely anybody voted on the basis of the £350 million a week. In fact by the time the vote came hardly anybody even believed it, if they even did in the first place (unlikely). It appears a lot of you lot hardly know any Leave voters at all.

    What you've got to understand is that most people see campaigns for what they are: promotion guff that is best ignored. I mean how many Remain voters genuinely believed the nonsense that was coming out of the Remain campaign? In fact most Remain voters I know (including myself) didn't. Probably you didn't either if you've much semblance of intelligence. You might not want to believe it, but most people have functioning brains so don't take any political campaign seriously. I think you'll find that for the most part whoever voted Leave and Remain respectively would have voted these ways before the campaigns even started. As a matter of fact, I bet you most people were annoyed at the campaigns of their own sides for discrediting their positions.

    I know you guys like to think it's impossible for people to look at an issue and think another from you unless they're stupid and brainwashed but it doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Your egos will just have to get used to it if you're going to make any progress in getting your views properly listed to and respected. Otherwise, expect more of the same. I mean obviously the £350 figure was nonsense so give people besides yourselves some credit for a change.
    This is a rather silly approach. The NHS pledge was a huge part of their campaign and repeated over and over and over and over.
    Concern about our public services was one of the main concerns and the leave camp played on this, promising to give the NHS an extra £350 million a week.

    Your line of argument here seem to be basically saying 'it's your fault for believing a pledge we made time and time again'.

    You are blaming people for believing a promise rather than the people who made the promise with no intention of carrying it out. *
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cashcash871)
    As an American, I'm curious. Did President Obama's speech about "back of the line" affect the outcome of the referendum? And what do you guys feel was the primary reason for leaving the EU? Was it the TTIP trade deal? Or mainly immigration and the refugee issue?
    Immigration mostly, especially after Merkel's invitation.

    However, you could tell that Brexit had already won when David Cameron campaigned for Remain.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I don't believe that.
    I never used the NHS. I don't know if it's good or bad.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cashcash871)
    As an American, I'm curious. Did President Obama's speech about "back of the line" affect the outcome of the referendum? And what do you guys feel was the primary reason for leaving the EU? Was it the TTIP trade deal? Or mainly immigration and the refugee issue?
    Although I was a leaver, if I hadn't have been one, Obama's 'back of line' would have made me a leaver. The same with Osbornes punishment budget...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)


    I never used the NHS. I don't know if it's good or bad.
    So... Mr free market (except when it comes to immigration) has no opinion on the evil statist socialist health care system.

    Have you ever seen a Syrian? Because by god you have plenty of opinions on them

    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Political tactics - they will look to raise funding at the next election not now. Rather than edge funding up year by year they will let it get further and further behind and then pledge at the next election to increase £350m a week (from a lower base) as a political tool.
    and then fail on the promise again?

    I hope you are right Mr Lexit :huff:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KimKallstrom)
    Barely anybody voted on the basis of the £350 million a week. In fact by the time the vote came hardly anybody even believed it, if they even did in the first place (unlikely). It appears a lot of you lot hardly know any Leave voters at all.

    What you've got to understand is that most people see campaigns for what they are: promotion guff that is best ignored. I mean how many Remain voters genuinely believed the nonsense that was coming out of the Remain campaign? In fact most Remain voters I know (including myself) didn't. Probably you didn't either if you've much semblance of intelligence. You might not want to believe it, but most people have functioning brains so don't take any political campaign seriously. I think you'll find that for the most part whoever voted Leave and Remain respectively would have voted these ways before the campaigns even started. As a matter of fact, I bet you most people were annoyed at the campaigns of their own sides for discrediting their positions.

    I know you guys like to think it's impossible for people to look at an issue and think another from you unless they're stupid and brainwashed but it doesn't work like that I'm afraid. Your egos will just have to get used to it if you're going to make any progress in getting your views properly listed to and respected. Otherwise, expect more of the same. I mean obviously the £350 figure was nonsense so give people besides yourselves some credit for a change.
    So then why does anyone bother with political campaigns if they don't work?

    It's like advertising. It obviously works enough for companies to invest in it. There is evidently some natural selection process occurring which produces advertising/political campaigns.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Private NHS in 2020 - 2025? Also, some of you guys need to check if the industry you're in will be affected by Brexit. An amazing time, it sure is.
    • Thread Starter
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cashcash871)
    As an American, I'm curious. Did President Obama's speech about "back of the line" affect the outcome of the referendum? And what do you guys feel was the primary reason for leaving the EU? Was it the TTIP trade deal? Or mainly immigration and the refugee issue?
    I don't think Obama's intervention made any material difference - both sides were already pretty much decided and he probably just reinforced the intelligent view of the Remainers and the deluded conspiracy views of the Brexiteers.

    The underlying reason for the Leave vote was that politicians of the Right successfully resurfaced and manipulated nationalism, xenophobia and racism in the context of stagnant economic conditions for large numbers of poorer and working class voters. The same phenomenon can be observed throughout Europe, in the US (Trump and the Tea Party) and in other parts of the world. There was a substantial crash in living standards for the less well off after 2008 and they have not recovered. The Left is in chaos in Europe as they went through a period of losing relevance to working class people. In the UK, this has allowed racist and colonialist past agendas to rise up. UKIP and their friends in the Leave campaign evoked simplistic solutions and leaving the EU is one of those.

    Behind these neo-fascist campaigns lie particular business and offshored tax-evader interests, scheming for their own advantage. In particular, media oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch and the owners of the Daily Mail and Telegraph, all serial tax evaders, were fearful of changes to the ways in which the City of London would be administered in future by the EU. This also affected many speculators and powerful hedge funds. Murdoch and the other media owners have twisted public opinion over decades on the EU and smothered it in mountains of lies and distortion.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So... Mr free market (except when it comes to immigration) has no opinion on the evil statist socialist health care system.

    Have you ever seen a Syrian? Because by god you have plenty of opinions on them
    I'm for privatisation, but if the public system works, then I am ok keeping it.

    I work as a teacher now, and there is a special group of refugees (including Syrians) at my college; the director of the program is worried for the two girls of the group.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So then why does anyone bother with political campaigns if they don't work?

    It's like advertising. It obviously works enough for companies to invest in it. There is evidently some natural selection process occurring which produces advertising/political campaigns.
    Yes. It's ludicrous to suggest the media has no influence on people.

    Blair and Campbell didn't desperately cosy up to Murdoch because the media has no influence...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Theresa May needs to be careful with the NHS.

    She seems to be trying to resemble Thatcher but she would do well to avoid the Thatcher tendency of the later years to ignore public opinion and barge down in to a cul de sac like the Poll Tax.

    The NHS is important to the public and if it is seen to be failing, it will be a major issue at the next election. May has taken the approach here of "getting tough with the NHS" telling them to focus on making efficiencies, just like Hunt focused on "getting tough with the doctors". I expect that their approach will be, in the face of criticism, to blame things on the BMA, blame NHS England for not being efficient, etc but by the time 2020 comes around and there has been a Conservative government for 10 years it becomes harder and harder to avoid blame and it will contribute to the image of the Tories not being on peoples side if the government is targeting the people that work in the NHS to blame.

    Whilst some right wing Conservatives and UKIPers love the idea of privatised healthcare, it is toxic as a voting issue in the UK - you simply will not get people to vote for you if you stand up on a ticket of privatising the NHS. Theresa May needs to sort this out: her focus on grammar schools, reforming company law and so on will all pale in to insignificance for the public if the NHS is failing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I don't think Obama's intervention made any material difference - both sides were already pretty much decided and he probably just reinforced the intelligent view of the Remainers and the deluded conspiracy views of the Brexiteers.

    The underlying reason for the Leave vote was that politicians of the Right successfully resurfaced and manipulated nationalism, xenophobia and racism in the context of stagnant economic conditions for large numbers of poorer and working class voters. The same phenomenon can be observed throughout Europe, in the US (Trump and the Tea Party) and in other parts of the world. There was a substantial crash in living standards for the less well off after 2008 and they have not recovered. The Left is in chaos in Europe as they went through a period of losing relevance to working class people. In the UK, this has allowed racist and colonialist past agendas to rise up. UKIP and their friends in the Leave campaign evoked simplistic solutions and leaving the EU is one of those.

    Behind these neo-fascist campaigns lie particular business and offshored tax-evader interests, scheming for their own advantage. In particular, media oligarchs like Rupert Murdoch and the owners of the Daily Mail and Telegraph, all serial tax evaders, were fearful of changes to the ways in which the City of London would be administered in future by the EU. This also affected many speculators and powerful hedge funds. Murdoch and the other media owners have twisted public opinion over decades on the EU and smothered it in mountains of lies and distortion.
    Thanks for the detailed response. But didn't most of the banks and financial instructions in the City of London (and American banks with offices in London) support remaining in the EU?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Immigration mostly, especially after Merkel's invitation.

    However, you could tell that Brexit had already won when David Cameron campaigned for Remain.



    I never used the NHS. I don't know if it's good or bad.
    I don't understand. Why did David Cameron campaigning for the remain side influence voters to choose to leave?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cashcash871)
    I don't understand. Why did David Cameron campaigning for the remain side influence voters to choose to leave?
    Because many disliked him. 1/3 of the Labour electorate voted Leave; it was difficult for them to follow the instructions of a Tory. It is often noticed in democracies that referendums tend to be used by the electorate against their government.

    It was the same situation in France in 2005, when the French were asked about the European constitution. They voted against it because Chirac was unpopular and strongly supported the Yes side -- they didn't care much about the EU.

    Unless he has a strong popularity, the head of a government shouldn't be involved in referendum campaigns.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cashcash871)
    As an American, I'm curious. Did President Obama's speech about "back of the line" affect the outcome of the referendum? And what do you guys feel was the primary reason for leaving the EU? Was it the TTIP trade deal? Or mainly immigration and the refugee issue?
    Obama's speach in isolation did very little. It did though form the collective mass of negative speaches given by world leaders which had a huge effect.

    It reminds me of the Scottish referendum.. Every time an English politician said how weak Scotland was, and how bad it would be if they were on their own.. it just strengthened the Scottish resolve. Most people have at least some sense of patriotism, and when other countries are kicking you down, the first thing you want to do is prove them wrong and defy them. This was resolved in the Scottish referendum by the campaign, as they chose to instead focus on 'better together' - rather then - 'you can't cope on your own!!'. In the end the more positive inclusive method won out, and Scotland stayed.

    Instead of rallying positive messages though, the majority of world leaders, especially the European leaders, opted to try and kick England down and play on fear. It felt like every day a different leader was telling England how we cant survive on our own.. how we are not a world power any more.. how we would be a low priority for them etc. etc. European leaders should have been celebrating all the success of the EU, and urging us to continue that success.. but instead they chose to play towards fear and cowardice.. and it backfired hugely.

    I voted to remain, as did all of my family.. but even for us, when the French, Americans, Germans, etc. all said negative things towards the UK, how we cant manage, jibes at our policy/attitudes, it left a very bad taste in our mouths.

    I have no doubt that for some voters who were treading the line and couldn't decide.. the negative tactics of the outside world would have pushed them further into the patriotic rhetoric of the leave campaign.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 22, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.