The Commons Bar Mk XIII - MHoC Chat Thread

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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't buy it for a second that you're opposed to a candidate for being up the ass of big business. You have NEVER once expressed reservation about the closeness of the tories, or indeed Blair to big business.
    I have in the past asserted that we should weaken the link between government and banks and very much oppose the BOE purchasing corporate bonds. Additionally, i tend to believe we should cut business rates over corporation tax.

    So i'm not against big business but with Clinton i don't see any change at all towards the capitalism i want.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I have in the past asserted that we should weaken the link between government and banks and very much oppose the BOE purchasing corporate bonds. Additionally, i tend to believe we should cut business rates over corporation tax.

    So i'm not against big business but with Clinton i don't see any change at all towards the capitalism i want.
    Is her view radically different towards Cameron's regarding big business?

    Also you have repeatedly slated Corbyn for his views on Nato on Russia saying those alone make him unelectable yet Trump has pretty much the same views on those issues.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Let's face it. Russia's going to kill us.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Is her view radically different towards Cameron's regarding big business?

    Also you have repeatedly slated Corbyn for his views on Nato on Russia saying those alone make him unelectable yet Trump has pretty much the same views on those issues.
    No but then i complained about the coalitions attitude to banking quite often too.

    I agree and it's a major factor in why i would not vote for him in the US and consider some people here to be supporting something not in their self interest. With that being said a key difference is that the US is a superpower and will be regardless of who they ally with, that is not the case for the UK.

    As i said before, both candidates are truly awful.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So Theresa May confirms that there will be no extra money for the NHS. So much for:
    (a) 'A country that works for everyone'
    (b) an extra £350 million a week to the NHS

    I so wish Ruth Davidson was Tory leader.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Govt tell NHS to cut down on the services it provides. No surprise there.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    So Theresa May confirms that there will be no extra money for the NHS. So much for:
    (a) 'A country that works for everyone'
    (b) an extra £350 million a week to the NHS

    I so wish Ruth Davidson was Tory leader.
    Theresa May never promised b) so I don't think that you can blame her for that one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Theresa May never promised b) so I don't think that you can blame her for that one.
    Also the Tories actually promised a tonne of money already in the 2015 election (far too much if you ask me - the NHS is a bottomless pit).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Theresa May never promised b) so I don't think that you can blame her for that one.
    Granted but her reasoning for a major reduction in inwards migration is that it was a major factor in why people voted brexit.

    The NHS claim was also a major factor trumpeted by members of her own cabinet. She should be consistent.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Also the Tories actually promised a tonne of money already in the 2015 election (far too much if you ask me - the NHS is a bottomless pit).
    Not really, they front loaded the payments so immediately it looked like they were funding it properly but in reality it still didn't cover the costs to keep it steady and now there will be even deeper cuts. Its only a black hole because no one will go near long term policies to reduce health costs because it won't produce short term results.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So Jess Phillips labour MP wants to ban men from standing in by-elections, how can labour call this missandrist an "equalities campaigner"?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    So Jess Phillips labour MP wants to ban men from standing in by-elections, how can labour call this missandrist an "equalities campaigner"?
    To be fair i expect that Dianne Abbot would 'white' in front of men.

    One has to remember that social justice warriors are simply the racists and sexists of yesteryear in terms of their bigoted attitudes, they simply have a different focus.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Theresa May never promised b) so I don't think that you can blame her for that one.
    Nobody promised b, apart from to the remoaners that seem to think that suggesting that you could spend a bit of an amount on something constitutes a promise to spend the entirety of that amount on it.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Nobody promised b, apart from to the remoaners that seem to think that suggesting that you could spend a bit of an amount on something constitutes a promise to spend the entirety of that amount on it.
    Errrmmmm
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Errrmmmm
    From a semantic point of view, that's not actually a promise, it's a suggestion of what you could do with £350 million per week.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    From a semantic point of view, that's not actually a promise, it's a suggestion of what you could do with £350 million per week.
    Do you think that's how people at home understood it or how they were ment to perceive it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Do you think that's how people at home understood it or how they were ment to perceive it?
    No, not at all. It was intended to be perceived as a promise, but that is the fault of those misreading it. 'Let's give' is a cohortative imperative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortative#Cohortative), meaning that it's encouraging people to perform that action, i.e. voting to give the NHS £350 million a week, but it's not actually promising to do so.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    No, not at all. It was intended to be perceived as a promise, but that is the fault of those misreading it. 'Let's give' is a cohortative imperative (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hortative#Cohortative), meaning that it's encouraging people to perform that action, i.e. voting to give the NHS £350 million a week, but it's not actually promising to do so.
    So it's the fault of the people being misled for being misled and not those who intended to mislead?
    Do politicians now have to say 'I promise' or 'I will' before everything otherwise they aren't accountable?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    So it's the fault of the people being misled for being misled and not those who intended to mislead?
    Do politicians now have to say 'I promise' or 'I will' before everything otherwise they aren't accountable?
    It's the fault of people now misinterpreting the nature of the campaign material. Nowhere did Vote Leave say that they were giving £350 million to the NHS.

    It's like me saying 'let's give £350 million to donkey sanctuaries, vote leave.' Now, you may interpret that as a promise to give £350 million to donkey sanctuaries if I vote leave, but all I am doing is simply making the suggestion that by voting leave, we could do that. Now if I instead said 'vote leave and give £350 million per week to donkey sanctuaries', then the conjunction 'and' and the second person imperatives denote that the two events will happen and are causally linked. So you can see, you don't need to say 'I promise' or 'I will' before every promise. But back to the NHS example, you can't blame Vote Leave at all for the average voter making a semantic error on their part, nor can you say that Vote Leave intended to deceive, indeed you have no way of knowing their intentions. Furthermore, because Vote Leave only made a suggestion of giving the money to the NHS, they are not accountable because it was a suggestion not a promise. The idea that it was a pledge was as the result of misinterpretation by the Remain campaign because they made the same semantic error.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    It's the fault of people now misinterpreting the nature of the campaign material. Nowhere did Vote Leave say that they were giving £350 million to the NHS.

    It's like me saying 'let's give £350 million to donkey sanctuaries, vote leave.' Now, you may interpret that as a promise to give £350 million to donkey sanctuaries if I vote leave, but all I am doing is simply making the suggestion that by voting leave, we could do that. Now if I instead said 'vote leave and give £350 million per week to donkey sanctuaries', then the conjunction 'and' and the second person imperatives denote that the two events will happen and are causally linked. So you can see, you don't need to say 'I promise' or 'I will' before every promise. But back to the NHS example, you can't blame Vote Leave at all for the average voter making a semantic error on their part, nor can you say that Vote Leave intended to deceive, indeed you have no way of knowing their intentions. Furthermore, because Vote Leave only made a suggestion of giving the money to the NHS, they are not accountable because it was a suggestion not a promise. The idea that it was a pledge was as the result of misinterpretation by the Remain campaign because they made the same semantic error.
    Again, these words were deliberately chosen to deceive and manipulate people and you are saying that it's the people's fault for believing it. You cannot possibly believe that those words were just coincidental or that Vote Leave just wanted to get people thinking, they clearly ment to trick people and to try and suggest differently is insulting your own intelligence.
    So are we going to abolish all fraud laws because 'if people are stupid enough to believe it it's their own fault'? You are such a bloody Tory and definitely don't belong in the liberals.
 
 
 
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: December 5, 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...?
Study 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.