The Commons Bar Mk XIII - MHoC Chat Thread

Announcements Posted on
TSR looking different to you this week? Find out why here. 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    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.
    Were you at the meetings where Vote Leave decided on the NHS strategy? Were you one of the people responsible for it? No, you weren't and thus you cannot possibly hope to divine the motives of the campaign and that phrasing. As such, you cannot possibly conjecture that the intention was to deceive and manipulate people. You can believe that it may have been the intention, but you have no means of making the leap to stating it as fact. If people misinterpret the words of the campaign, then that is entirely their fault. Vote Leave chose a cohortative imperative so were making a suggestion, not a policy promise and you're getting the two confused, as indeed did the Remain vote.

    Do I think that the words were coincidental? No, I don't, they were carefully chosen to avoid making a policy pledge which they may not be able to fulfil later on. To accuse Vote Leave of tricking people is an opinion - you are making a leap of faith for which there is no supporting evidence. With regard to fraud law, you're making another leap. Do I think that there should be protections for those defrauded? Of course I do, but that is irrelevant to your issue here - Vote Leave did not deceive people at all.

    I think that I'm fine in the Liberals nor do I think that the Conservatives would want me on their benches, but again that is not the issue here. Do I think that people should have read that poster a little more clearly? Of course I do, but if they don't, that's not Vote Leave's fault, that's the fault of the voter. Moreover, if you want to blame anyone, try blaming Remain for turning it into a pledge when Vote Leave did not pledge to give that money to the NHS.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Were you at the meetings where Vote Leave decided on the NHS strategy? Were you one of the people responsible for it? No, you weren't and thus you cannot possibly hope to divine the motives of the campaign and that phrasing. As such, you cannot possibly conjecture that the intention was to deceive and manipulate people. You can believe that it may have been the intention, but you have no means of making the leap to stating it as fact. If people misinterpret the words of the campaign, then that is entirely their fault. Vote Leave chose a cohortative imperative so were making a suggestion, not a policy promise and you're getting the two confused, as indeed did the Remain vote.

    Do I think that the words were coincidental? No, I don't, they were carefully chosen to avoid making a policy pledge which they may not be able to fulfil later on. To accuse Vote Leave of tricking people is an opinion - you are making a leap of faith for which there is no supporting evidence. With regard to fraud law, you're making another leap. Do I think that there should be protections for those defrauded? Of course I do, but that is irrelevant to your issue here - Vote Leave did not deceive people at all.

    I think that I'm fine in the Liberals nor do I think that the Conservatives would want me on their benches, but again that is not the issue here. Do I think that people should have read that poster a little more clearly? Of course I do, but if they don't, that's not Vote Leave's fault, that's the fault of the voter. Moreover, if you want to blame anyone, try blaming Remain for turning it into a pledge when Vote Leave did not pledge to give that money to the NHS.
    Apart from of course a great big poster and the constant claims about how we would give all that money to the NHS?

    If we go by your logic (which, granted you don't have much of) then surely the government could equally refuse to cut immigration too if brexit pledges meant nothing?*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Apart from of course a great big poster and the constant claims about how we would give all that money to the NHS?

    If we go by your logic (which, granted you don't have much of) then surely the government could equally refuse to cut immigration too if brexit pledges meant nothing?*
    If you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks, don't bother posting at all. If you're unable to follow my argument in an area (language) of which I suspect that I have far greater experience than you, then ask for help, don't resort to cheap attacks.

    You've missed the point entirely and your post is entirely incorrect on its second point. Nowhere did Vote Leave claim that we would give all the money to the NHS, they claimed that we could. The two are entirely different verbs and thus entirely different things. If Vote Leave said 'if you vote leave, we would give all the money to the NHS', then that would be a policy promise and I would agree with you. However, Vote Leave said 'if you vote leave, we could give all the money to the NHS'. The difference here is that Vote Leave are saying if you vote leave, then it is possible that we could give the money to the NHS. That allows for the possibility that they do not have to do that in a way that the verb 'would' do not.

    On your third point, I'll take this poster:.



    Now technically speaking you're correct, the pledge here is simply to introduce a new system, not to limit immigration. That said, that derives from the Tories' manifesto pledge as well as the Vote Leave pledge (though the latter doesn't exist). Now here you might also say that there is a pledge to give the NHS millions a week and you're right, there is. Note the language though, no specifics, just 'millions'. In this case, Vote Leave could fulfil this pledge by giving the NHS an extra £2 million per week because that would be 'millions'.

    In short, while there was a pledge to give the NHS extra money, it was never £350 million and the idea that you could vote leave and give the NHS an extra £350 million per week is ludicrous because there was no such promise, just a suggestion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    If you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks, don't bother posting at all. If you're unable to follow my argument in an area (language) of which I suspect that I have far greater experience than you, then ask for help, don't resort to cheap attacks.

    You've missed the point entirely and your post is entirely incorrect on its second point. Nowhere did Vote Leave claim that we would give all the money to the NHS, they claimed that we could. The two are entirely different verbs and thus entirely different things. If Vote Leave said 'if you vote leave, we would give all the money to the NHS', then that would be a policy promise and I would agree with you. However, Vote Leave said 'if you vote leave, we could give all the money to the NHS'. The difference here is that Vote Leave are saying if you vote leave, then it is possible that we could give the money to the NHS. That allows for the possibility that they do not have to do that in a way that the verb 'would' do not.

    On your third point, I'll take this poster:.



    Now technically speaking you're correct, the pledge here is simply to introduce a new system, not to limit immigration. That said, that derives from the Tories' manifesto pledge as well as the Vote Leave pledge (though the latter doesn't exist). Now here you might also say that there is a pledge to give the NHS millions a week and you're right, there is. Note the language though, no specifics, just 'millions'. In this case, Vote Leave could fulfil this pledge by giving the NHS an extra £2 million per week because that would be 'millions'.

    In short, while there was a pledge to give the NHS extra money, it was never £350 million and the idea that you could vote leave and give the NHS an extra £350 million per week is ludicrous because there was no such promise, just a suggestion.
    Sigh. When you say illogical tripe expect to be called out for it.

    **I'm not see why you feel you have a great deal more experience than me.

    *The poster read 'let's give the NHS £350 million a week instead'.

    What you are trying to do here is pathetically (no surprise) trying to play on semantics by saying 'it wasn't an absolute commitment it was just an idea'.

    It wasn't a one off idea, it wasn't portrayed as suggestion. It was promoted time and time and time and time and time and time again. It was a hallmark of the leave campaign. It was repeated over and over to purposely give the impression that if we leave the EU that it will happen.

    To make out that all it was , was just a mere suggestion with no intention into making people feel that it would ever be carried out is simply laughable. It as more than saying 'we could' give the money to the NHS. It said 'let's give it to the NHS'

    To say 'let's give it to the NHS' very much implies that you will do so if given the chance rather than simply outlining that it was a possibility.

    Given Gove and Johnson were so keen to talk about how much more money we could give to the NHS where are their protests?

    *
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Were you at the meetings where Vote Leave decided on the NHS strategy? Were you one of the people responsible for it? No, you weren't and thus you cannot possibly hope to divine the motives of the campaign and that phrasing. As such, you cannot possibly conjecture that the intention was to deceive and manipulate people. You can believe that it may have been the intention, but you have no means of making the leap to stating it as fact. If people misinterpret the words of the campaign, then that is entirely their fault. Vote Leave chose a cohortative imperative so were making a suggestion, not a policy promise and you're getting the two confused, as indeed did the Remain vote.

    Do I think that the words were coincidental? No, I don't, they were carefully chosen to avoid making a policy pledge which they may not be able to fulfil later on. To accuse Vote Leave of tricking people is an opinion - you are making a leap of faith for which there is no supporting evidence. With regard to fraud law, you're making another leap. Do I think that there should be protections for those defrauded? Of course I do, but that is irrelevant to your issue here - Vote Leave did not deceive people at all.

    I think that I'm fine in the Liberals nor do I think that the Conservatives would want me on their benches, but again that is not the issue here. Do I think that people should have read that poster a little more clearly? Of course I do, but if they don't, that's not Vote Leave's fault, that's the fault of the voter. Moreover, if you want to blame anyone, try blaming Remain for turning it into a pledge when Vote Leave did not pledge to give that money to the NHS.
    It's still manipulating morons to vote incorrectly on the most important vote of their lifetime, even if deliberately legal (which I agree, it is) it's blatantly immoral.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The £350m was either a 'promise' or deliberately deceptive. There is no middle ground here.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    In other news, another constitutional expert who believes that Parliamentary assent is necessary to trigger Article 50: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016...or-government/

    I respect Mark Elliott a lot, but he's literally fighting that corner on his own.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    It's still manipulating morons to vote incorrectly on the most important vote of their lifetime, even if deliberately legal (which I agree, it is) it's blatantly immoral.
    Why do people decry immorality in politics so much? Morality is entirely subjective, especially when you down to this level, and since when was politics known to be at the pinnacle of moral good (in accordance with those that like to pretend they're on the moral high ground all the time)?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    1476614607545.jpg

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Don't worry Boris, I still love you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why do people decry immorality in politics so much? Morality is entirely subjective, especially when you down to this level, and since when was politics known to be at the pinnacle of moral good (in accordance with those that like to pretend they're on the moral high ground all the time)?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why do people decry immorality in politics? Hmm, maybe because as a society we should seek to hold politicians to account for their actions. I condemn it in the Labour party, I condemn it across politics, what is the point of a party if they suddenly change their views half-way through? Evidence should have come from both sides and a plan to actually discuss what the implications of Leave or Remain would be.

    It didn't happen, it should have happened, we should be appalled.

    It should be seen as a public service, not a way to "win more votes"
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Huge swing in Netherlands back to Remain, seemingly they have the sense to reject leaving.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Shock to absolutely no-one as Brexit committee not going to debate effects on the economy. Hammond criticised for arguing "like an accountant."

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Attached Images
  1. File Type: jpg 1476692111215.jpg (96.7 KB, 16 views)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Ah the Batley and Spen by-election: Labour versus six different fascists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Huge swing in Netherlands back to Remain, seemingly they have the sense to reject leaving.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Never take a poll in isolation or you'll end up looking stupid.

    That said i don't know enough about Dutch polling to really do anything but look at the poll of polls.

    I don't actually count the Netherlands as a nation likely to leave anyway.

    (Original post by cBay)
    Ah the Batley and Spen by-election: Labour versus six different fascists.
    From 2018 it will lose Batley. According to electoral calculus Ukip would have got 26% of the vote in Spen.

    Fair chance it goes blue in 2020 though (cox's majority would have been 5.3%).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Never take a poll in isolation or you'll end up looking stupid.

    That said i don't know enough about Dutch polling to really do anything but look at the poll of polls.

    I don't actually count the Netherlands as a nation likely to leave anyway.



    From 2018 it will lose Batley. According to electoral calculus Ukip would have got 26% of the vote in Spen.

    Fair chance it goes blue in 2020 though (cox's majority would have been 5.3%).
    Normally I'd agree, but a 17% swing?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Normally I'd agree, but a 17% swing?
    Are you looking at the election poll or something else?

    Link?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Are you looking at the election poll or something else?

    Link?
    Fair point, it was a tweet, I'll see if I can track it down from last night, but nothing on google.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    More on Brexit:

    The country favours a 'soft' Brexit

    Boris Johnson, the Remainer
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As ever i think you have far too much faith in peoples ability to know what they want.

    The public want to be members of the single market.
    The public want sovereignty in the sense of making our own laws (i.e. withdrawl from the ECJ and probably ECHR).
    The public want free movement abolished.

    What the public want is a big fat cake with tonnes of icing. They are going to have sacrifice at least one of their key desires and as yet i've seen no polling really tell us which one the public are prepared to let go. Your poll for example does not factor in what Leave voters want and politically, they are more important for the government.

    I will say that i'm personally not against the Boris idea of making a continued net contribution in return for single market access. My own desire would be to stay in the single market, withdraw from the ECJ and ECHR and concede on immigration however that's not likely to happen so conceding on money is a fair option i think.
 
 
 
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 8, 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
How are you feeling about doing A-levels?
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.