Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,607
|
Post by Steve on Aug 9, 2024 11:19:55 GMT
Thanks that does help But actually the promise wasn't that, it was to take steps to make it so and more importantly the Conservatives didn't win that election. The electorate did not back them. A coalition won and that promise was not in the coalition agreement. It's just plain wrong to pretend we were betrayed when we the electorate didn't back the manifesto. In the sense that they were prepared to ditch it as a compromise, they refused / failed to do it. The electorate backed them enough for them to form the senior part of a coalition government . So, to say the electorate did not back them is really a lie - they backed them sufficiently for them to form the senior part of a coalition. If, for instance, a lib dem policy you enjoyed had been enacted in that coalition , (say) imprisoning people for disagreeing with your political beliefs, you would not be here presently struggling to argue that the electorate didn't (at least to some degree) ask for this policy. I believe the lib dems have the same accusation of double cross regarding student loans. So far you are just engaging in absurd pedantry- ie picking on one tiny part of a broader claim to find (or argue) for a technical flaw that makes little odds to the broader claim. However, a naive (or normal) reader might get the impression that the broader claim is false, ie that the conservatives had not won an election with assurance they would reduce immigration and then refuse to do so - this is because a normal person is more interested in the broader claim than a pedantic technical argument about one tiny part of it and the naive reader would assume you were normal and therefore you shared their interest in the actual reality of the issue. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. I myself wouldn't spend energy trying to use a dubious technical argument to counter one small part of a broadly true claim because if the broader claim / pattern is true, such argumentation makes little odds to me - either your argument changes something or don't bother. However, this is the only thing you appear to engage in. I avoid political conversation with you (in a forum full of people i disagree with politically because I suspect you have mental problems that make such conversations with you moot. No Orac you have been caught yet again peddling fake news.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,607
|
Post by Steve on Aug 9, 2024 11:23:19 GMT
So you say you weren't endorsing Dappy's suggestion we don't discuss asylum seekers in this thread? No I wasn't. I was suggesting there might be enough intelligence here to continually discern between the relatively small number of asylum seekers and the large amount of immigrants. When the protest supporters talk of the public being against more immigration they are referring to legal immigrants, regardless of whatever the thugs smashing up shops and stealing might think. But what we think about that isn't the issue. It's that to the rioters and more importantly those they live with believe what they believe. And clearly they see the continual flouting of the law by boat people and the impact it is having on communities as a sore that salt keeps getting rubbed in. If anyone thinks we can get to zero risk of further unrest without addressing that then they are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 9, 2024 11:41:15 GMT
In the sense that they were prepared to ditch it as a compromise, they refused / failed to do it. The electorate backed them enough for them to form the senior part of a coalition government . So, to say the electorate did not back them is really a lie - they backed them sufficiently for them to form the senior part of a coalition. If, for instance, a lib dem policy you enjoyed had been enacted in that coalition , (say) imprisoning people for disagreeing with your political beliefs, you would not be here presently struggling to argue that the electorate didn't (at least to some degree) ask for this policy. I believe the lib dems have the same accusation of double cross regarding student loans. So far you are just engaging in absurd pedantry- ie picking on one tiny part of a broader claim to find (or argue) for a technical flaw that makes little odds to the broader claim. However, a naive (or normal) reader might get the impression that the broader claim is false, ie that the conservatives had not won an election with assurance they would reduce immigration and then refuse to do so - this is because a normal person is more interested in the broader claim than a pedantic technical argument about one tiny part of it and the naive reader would assume you were normal and therefore you shared their interest in the actual reality of the issue. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. I myself wouldn't spend energy trying to use a dubious technical argument to counter one small part of a broadly true claim because if the broader claim / pattern is true, such argumentation makes little odds to me - either your argument changes something or don't bother. However, this is the only thing you appear to engage in. I avoid political conversation with you (in a forum full of people i disagree with politically because I suspect you have mental problems that make such conversations with you moot. No Orac you have been caught yet again peddling fake news. I think we have rather just been treated to another example of your thinking problem. Even in the very narrow case in question, your position is arguable (a matter of interpretation, rather than cold fact). I don't expect you to understand this because you have previously demonstrated yourself incapable of drawing this distinction.Unfortunately, I am arguing with crash test dummy..which is my fault rather than yours
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 9, 2024 11:58:59 GMT
In the sense that they were prepared to ditch it as a compromise, they refused / failed to do it. The electorate backed them enough for them to form the senior part of a coalition government . So, to say the electorate did not back them is really a lie - they backed them sufficiently for them to form the senior part of a coalition. If, for instance, a lib dem policy you enjoyed had been enacted in that coalition , (say) imprisoning people for disagreeing with your political beliefs, you would not be here presently struggling to argue that the electorate didn't (at least to some degree) ask for this policy. I believe the lib dems have the same accusation of double cross regarding student loans. So far you are just engaging in absurd pedantry- ie picking on one tiny part of a broader claim to find (or argue) for a technical flaw that makes little odds to the broader claim. However, a naive (or normal) reader might get the impression that the broader claim is false, ie that the conservatives had not won an election with assurance they would reduce immigration and then refuse to do so - this is because a normal person is more interested in the broader claim than a pedantic technical argument about one tiny part of it and the naive reader would assume you were normal and therefore you shared their interest in the actual reality of the issue. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. I myself wouldn't spend energy trying to use a dubious technical argument to counter one small part of a broadly true claim because if the broader claim / pattern is true, such argumentation makes little odds to me - either your argument changes something or don't bother. However, this is the only thing you appear to engage in. I avoid political conversation with you (in a forum full of people i disagree with politically because I suspect you have mental problems that make such conversations with you moot. No Orac you have been caught yet again peddling fake news. I disagree. I think there is copious evidence that the Tories have promised to reduce immigration several times both while in power and as promises during election campaigning. That they haven't done so and indeed have increased immigration is the reason people are so angry. They voted for Brexit in the main to stop immigration and found FoM simply replaced with Visa quotas. Someone mentioned students don't count yet foreign student applications have fallen by 35% since the law changed in June to say you can't bring dependents. What can you surmise from that, certainly not IMO that those students were here to study and return home with an education. I still maintain it was grossly disgusting to descend on Southport and tear the place apart the day after those poor children were killed and that those who did do not represent anyone beyond a bunch of Fascists. But that does not translate into everyone is happy with immigration levels or the amount of people now residing in the UK as a result.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,607
|
Post by Steve on Aug 9, 2024 12:01:42 GMT
I suggest you actually dig out those promises
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,607
|
Post by Steve on Aug 9, 2024 12:12:22 GMT
No Orac you have been caught yet again peddling fake news. I think we have rather just been treated to another example of your thinking problem. Even in the very narrow case in question, your position is arguable (a matter of interpretation, rather than cold fact). I don't expect you to understand this because you have previously demonstrated yourself incapable of drawing this distinction.Unfortunately, I am arguing with crash test dummy..which is my fault rather than yours And yet again Orac you turn to personal abuse You claimed a promise to get elected was made to deliver an 'order of magnitude' reduction in immigration. No such promise was made.You claimed the government was elected on that promise - no they were not.
You used inflammatory language saying this was 'The political caste / class has connived and lied to force an unwanted policy on the UK public for decades.' and then saying it was actually 'an international criminal conspiracy'.Perhaps you don't know that using the behaviours of those that stir up riots is a bad thing. But it very much is.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 9, 2024 12:14:00 GMT
I suggest you actually dig out those promises I already gave you a link, here's another www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65714903In 2010, the Conservative Party's general election manifesto contained a promise to get net migration down to the "tens of thousands a year". One year later, former prime minister David Cameron pledged: "Our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts." I'm sure our reply will be to re-interpret their words into your own desired meaning. I'm happy to leave it that everyone bar you thinks the Tories have repeatedly promised
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,607
|
Post by Steve on Aug 9, 2024 12:19:56 GMT
Yes they have repeatedly promised but when someone is alleging electoral betrayal because some imagined international criminal conspiracy then we have to look at what actually was promised and happened at elections. And you have not quoted that manifesto correctly and they were not elected on it.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 9, 2024 12:25:45 GMT
Yes they have repeatedly promised but when someone is alleging electoral betrayal because some imagined international criminal conspiracy then we have to look at what actually was promised and happened at elections. And you have not quoted that manifesto correctly and they were not elected on it. More pedantry as expected. Maybe you can educate me by telling me the meaning of: In 2010, the Conservative Party's general election manifesto contained a promise to get net migration down to the " tens of thousands a year". One year later, former prime minister David Cameron pledged: "Our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts."
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 9, 2024 12:28:22 GMT
Yes they have repeatedly promised but when someone is alleging electoral betrayal because some imagined international criminal conspiracy then we have to look at what actually was promised and happened at elections. And you have not quoted that manifesto correctly and they were not elected on it. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain the meaning of In 2010, the Conservative Party's general election manifesto contained a promise to get net migration down to the "tens of thousands a year". One year later, former prime minister David Cameron pledged: " Our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts." I've highlighted the bits I'm struggling with.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,607
|
Post by Steve on Aug 9, 2024 12:33:12 GMT
The actual electoral promise was
'So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.'
Taking steps to achieve something is not the same as committing to achieve it. It means committing to taking steps you beleive will achieve it. Not that a timescale was in there.
Do I think the Tories have been very poor on this? Yes as I've posted over and over but Orac was alleging electoral betrayal as part of an international criminal conspriacy. And when someone is using grossly inflammatory language like that it needs to be challenged.
I note your lack of commitment to removing the abuse Orac threw but I figure you've taken steps to make this an abuse free site.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,607
|
Post by Steve on Aug 9, 2024 12:36:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 9, 2024 12:37:33 GMT
The actual electoral promise was 'So we will take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s – tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.'Taking steps to achieve something is not the same as committing to achieve it. It means committing to taking steps you beleive will achieve it. Not that a timescale was in there. Do I think the Tories have been very poor on this? Yes as I've posted over and over but Orac was alleging electoral betrayal as part of an international criminal conspriacy. And when someone is using grossly inflammatory language like that it needs to be challenged. I note your lack of commitment to removing the abuse Orac threw but I figure you've taken steps to make this an abuse free site. Ah, so you think that taking these steps which resulted in 14 years of record numbers of immigration were still steps. And therefore not a betrayal. Hmm. Not sure too many will read it that way.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,607
|
Post by Steve on Aug 9, 2024 12:52:25 GMT
Well that's up to them to so believe. I believe the Tories were woefully incompetent never realising the magnitude of the underlying causes and later deluding themselves that leaving the EU would deliver it.
But anyone seriously believing it was all down to some 'international criminal conspiracy' needs professional help.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 9, 2024 14:33:28 GMT
Well that's up to them to so believe. I believe the Tories were woefully incompetent never realising the magnitude of the underlying causes and later deluding themselves that leaving the EU would deliver it. But anyone seriously believing it was all down to some ' international criminal conspiracy' needs professional help. I never questioned that bit. That is an opinion. You didn't answer my questions, are you unable to? I re-iterate them for you. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain the meaning of In 2010, the Conservative Party's general election manifesto contained a promise to get net migration down to the "tens of thousands a year". One year later, former prime minister David Cameron pledged: "Our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts."
I've highlighted the bits I'm struggling with.
|
|