Theresa May

[sidicks]

FN2TypeR said:

Really?

Nothing surprises me anymore!

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Ah, yet another 101 questions by sidicks?

I asked you a question. I'll rephrase it, if the first one was not clear. Do you think that paying for votes is dishonest? You can answer, or you can do the sidick-dodge.

In government, when you enter into an agreenent with another political party there are inevitable compromises on numerous items, including spending etc.

You might see that as "dishonest bribery". I don't.

Likewise, if you are consistent, you must believe that the Tory / Lib Dem Coalition was a 'dishonest bribe' as the Tories were forced to change their spending plans to satisfy the requirements of the Lib Dems.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 11:54

So you, the sidick who spent days arguing against equation between Dup 'coalition' and Lib-dem coalition, you are now saying, that for 'consistency' sake they are the same?

But, let me guess, only when it comes to spending compromises, they are the same. Otherwise they are different. But they are the again the same as neither agreement is dishonest, even when blatantly paying for votes. Is that right? But still very different than Corbinesque attempt at paying for votes, or in his case, bribery.

I do enjoy your moral and mental gymnastics necessary to avoid ever being wrong. I honestly do.

[ATG]

sidicks said:

ATG said:

There is nothing inconsistent about judging one comprise as reasonable and another as unreasonable.

Of course not. But both would be 'dishonest bribes' by virtue of the definition that you / he want to ascribe to 'buying votes'.

And I suspect that the increased cost of public spending etc imposed by the
Lib Dems was much more than £1bn...

Given your penchant for obtuse literalism, shall we have a quick look at your second sentence? Yes, let's!?!!

I have not shown any wish to ascribe a particular meaning to "buying votes". Nor has anyone else. If you say "A follows from B" but B is cobblers, then you have failed to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of proposition A.

If bribery is intrinsically dishonest, then "dishonest bribes" is a tautology. If we assume you wouldn't make such a mistake, then why did you insist earlier in the thread that the inducement offered to the DUP could only be considered a bribe if it involved dishonesty?

Ans sticking "and" at the start of your second paragraph fails to disguise the fact that it is a non sequitur.

Mornington Crescent.

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

So you, the sidick who spent days arguing against equation between Dup 'coalition' and Lib-dem coalition, you are now saying, that for 'consistency' sake they are the same?

No, I've said no such thing. That's just your strawman nonsense.
I've said that if you regards the Tory-DUP 'confidence and supply' deal as 'dishonest bribery' to buy votes, then logically you'd regard the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition as exactly the same.

Well you would if you were being consistent. Are you?

jjlynn27 said:

But, let me guess, only when it comes to spending compromises, they are the same.

There are some similarities and some differences. That doesn't make the same thing. HTH

jjlynn27 said:

Otherwise they are different. But they are the again the same as neither agreement is dishonest, even when blatantly paying for votes. Is that right?

You're the one claiming the Tory-DUP deal is dishonest, not me.

jjlynn27 said:

But still very different than Corbinesque attempt at paying for votes, or in his case, bribery.
I do enjoy your moral and mental gymnastics necessary to avoid ever being wrong. I honestly do.

I can determine the difference between making compromises on spending to achieve a government majority (on the one hand), with making unfunded promises to attract votes from a subset of the electorate (on the other).

I do enjoy your inability to understand the point being made. Maybe it's the language barrier?

I don't recall your bleatings over the Tory - Lib Dem Coalition deal being 'dishonest bribery'...

[98elise]

jjlynn27 said:

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

Who are those left leaning posters? Corbyn, as previously said, would be an unmitigated disaster for the country. That doesn't mean what May did was not, wait for it, a bribe. She should be in some dead end department where she can harmlessly repeat whatever meaningless tautology comes to her at any given moment. As a pm, she's a joke.

She's hopelessly out of her debt. The only people who can't see that are the ones who just repeat; "but what about Corbyn".

What is dishonest about the arrangement with the DUP?

What is dishonest about paying for votes? Are you seriously asking that?

You mean like Corbyn and the student fees? It was a blatant buying of votes, but it's not dishonest it's just politics. People generally vote for the party most likely to benefit them the most.

[sidicks]

ATG said:

Given your penchant for obtuse literalism, shall we have a quick look at your second sentence? Yes, let's!?!!

I have not shown any wish to ascribe a particular meaning to "buying votes". Nor has anyone else. If you say "A follows from B" but B is cobblers, then you have failed to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of proposition A.

If bribery is intrinsically dishonest, then "dishonest bribes" is a tautology. If we assume you wouldn't make such a mistake, then why did you insist earlier in the thread that the inducement offered to the DUP could only be considered a bribe if it involved dishonesty?

Ans sticking "and" at the start of your second paragraph fails to disguise the fact that it is a non sequitur.

Mornington Crescent.

By definition, bribery involves dishonesty - that's based on the definition provided by dict earlier in the thread.

I maintain there is nothing dishonest about the deal between the Tories and the DUP and neither was there anything dishonest about the deal between the deal between the Tories and the Lib 'dems back in 2010.

At best I think 'Corbyn was deliberately misleading the electorate.

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

So you, the sidick who spent days arguing against equation between Dup 'coalition' and Lib-dem coalition, you are now saying, that for 'consistency' sake they are the same?

No, I've said no such thing. That's just your strawman nonsense.
I've said that if you regards the Tory-DUP 'confidence and supply' deal as 'dishonest bribery' to buy votes, then logically you'd regard the Tory-Lib Dem Coalition as exactly the same.

Well you would if you were being consistent. Are you?

jjlynn27 said:

But, let me guess, only when it comes to spending compromises, they are the same.

There are some similarities and some differences. That doesn't make the same thing. HTH

jjlynn27 said:

Otherwise they are different. But they are the again the same as neither agreement is dishonest, even when blatantly paying for votes. Is that right?

You're the one claiming the Tory-DUP deal is dishonest, not me.

jjlynn27 said:

But still very different than Corbinesque attempt at paying for votes, or in his case, bribery.
I do enjoy your moral and mental gymnastics necessary to avoid ever being wrong. I honestly do.

I can determine the difference between making compromises on spending to achieve a government majority (on the one hand), with making unfunded promises to attract votes from a subset of the electorate (on the other).

I do enjoy your inability to understand the point being made. Maybe it's the language barrier?

I don't recall your bleatings over the Tory - Lib Dem Coalition deal being 'dishonest bribery'...

'strawman'. bwahahahaha (when rofl is just not enough). You use 'strawman' every time when you are proven wrong. Every single time.

Unsurprisingly more gymnastics. Tory Lib-Dem deal, y'know the coalition, is nothing like DUP coalition.
You'd have to be either terminally stupid or very dishonest to draw parallels. I don't think that you are terminally stupid.

To enter into coalition Lib-Dems had to give up one of their most visible manifesto promises, tuition fees. That's their compromise. What did DUP give up? Grand total of fk all. They are selling votes. 10 votes for £1b. 'Pay us to vote this way'.

The difference you are able to determine is 'Labour bad - dishonest' 'Tory good - not dishonest'. Unfunded? Is that local for different kind of, to use your favorite phrase, money tree?

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

'strawman'. bwahahahaha (when rofl is just not enough). You use 'strawman' every time when you are proven wrong. Every single time.

I've not been proven wrong, you've tried to suggest I've said something that is not true.

At no point have I said that a Coalition and a 'confidence and supply' deal are the same. What I have said is that, in one crucial way - 'buying votes' they are effectively the same.

You seem to dispute that.

jjlynn27 said:

Unsurprisingly more gymnastics. Tory Lib-Dem deal, y'know the coalition, is nothing like DUP coalition.
You'd have to be either terminally stupid or very dishonest to draw parallels. I don't think that you are terminally stupid.

It is very similar in one crucial way - the one under discussion!

Are you saying that the Tories didn't go into a Coalition with the Lib Dems to 'buy their votes in Parliament'? Isn't that the exact point of the Coalition?

If not, in that case, why did they go into Coalition with them at all?

jjlynn27 said:

To enter into coalition Lib-Dems had to give up one of their most visible manifesto promises, tuition fees. That's their compromise. What did DUP give up? Grand total of fk all. They are selling votes. 10 votes for £1b. 'Pay us to vote this way'.

If the DUP were already automatically going to vote in line with Tory policy on everything, then why was a deal necessary? If not, then they have clearly made a compromise.

jjlynn27 said:

The difference you are able to determine is 'Labour bad - dishonest' 'Tory good - not dishonest'. Unfunded? Is that local for different kind of, to use your favorite phrase, money tree?

Use whatever word helps your understanding.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 14:07

Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 14:10

[jjlynn27]

98elise said:

You mean like Corbyn and the student fees? It was a blatant buying of votes, but it's not dishonest it's just politics. People generally vote for the party most likely to benefit them the most.

I mean exactly like Corbyn and the student fees.
It was a blatant ATTEMPT at buying of votes.
If I'm not mistaken sidick was very adamant that Corbyn was bribing part of the electorate.

[andymadmak]

I don't see the Coalition Government from 2010 as dishonest or the result of a bribe to anyone. It was the result of the no overall majority outcome of the election.

Likewise I don't see the current confidence and supply agreement with the DUP as being dishonest or the result of a bribe to anyone.It was the result of the outcome of the election.

I do think that there is a clear difference between a full Coalition and a C&S agreement

I do think that the DUP have taken advantage of Tory weakness in the aftermath of the election - to the benefit of all communities in Northern Ireland (Nothing I have seen anyway suggests that the additional funding for the north secured by the DUP will only go to DUP supporting communities - is this correct? )

I do think Mr Corbyn played a blinder in the election campaign. I would say that he allowed a (probable) misunderstanding of what he was saying regarding Student debt to perpetuate to the point where he had secured a large dollop of student votes in exchange for something he never crystallised into a firm policy statement!

Interestingly my son and his GF both graduated this year. His GF was completely taken in by what she believed Mr Corbyn had said : Abolition of fees, reinstatement of full maintenance grants, backdated so that all historic debt cleared. When I asked her to point me to where this was all "promised" she just said "Facebook". Now, this is a very intelligent young woman we are talking about here, (genuinely) but she was completely suckered by the on line campaign.

[sidicks]

andymadmak said:

I don't see the Coalition Government from 2010 as dishonest or the result of a bribe to anyone. It was the result of the no overall majority outcome of the election.

Likewise I don't see the current confidence and supply agreement with the DUP as being dishonest or the result of a bribe to anyone.It was the result of the outcome of the election.

I do think that there is a clear difference between a full Coalition and a C&S agreement

I do think that the DUP have taken advantage of Tory weakness in the aftermath of the election - to the benefit of all communities in Northern Ireland (Nothing I have seen anyway suggests that the additional funding for the north secured by the DUP will only go to DUP supporting communities - is this correct? )

I do think Mr Corbyn played a blinder in the election campaign. I would say that he allowed a (probable) misunderstanding of what he was saying regarding Student debt to perpetuate to the point where he had secured a large dollop of student votes in exchange for something he never crystallised into a firm policy statement!

Interestingly my son and his GF both graduated this year. His GF was completely taken in by what she believed Mr Corbyn had said : Abolition of fees, reinstatement of full maintenance grants, backdated so that all historic debt cleared. When I asked her to point me to where this was all "promised" she just said "Facebook". Now, this is a very intelligent young woman we are talking about here, (genuinely) but she was completely suckered by the on line campaign.

Agree on everything.

[ATG]

sidicks said:

By definition, bribery involves dishonesty - that's based on the definition provided by dict earlier in the thread.

I maintain there is nothing dishonest about the deal between the Tories and the DUP and neither was there anything dishonest about the deal between the deal between the Tories and the Lib 'dems back in 2010.

At best I think 'Corbyn was deliberately misleading the electorate.

Get a better dictionary.

If I said "a mother was trying to bribe her child with sweets" would you seriously suggest I was using the word "bribe" inappropriately because neither mother, child nor the sweets were being dishonest?

The crux of a bribe is that it is an inappropriate inducement.

The OED defines a bribe as "Money etc. offered to procure (often illegal or dishonest) action or decision in favour of giver."

I've flipped through four dicts and the OED is the only one to even mention dishonesty and it clearly does not say that dishonesty is a necessary attribute of a bribe.

Pedantry falls rather flat when the non-point you're trying to make turns out to be mistaken.

Edited by ATG on Monday 24th July 14:21

[sidicks]

ATG said:

Get a better dictionary.

1. I wasn't providing the definition, someone else was.
2. Most people would use the OED as a credible source.

ATG said:

If I said "a mother was trying to bribe her child with sweets" would you seriously suggest I was using the word "bribe" inappropriately because neither mother, child nor the sweets were being dishonest?

The crux of a bribe is that it is an inappropriate inducement.

'Inappropriate' in what way?

ATG said:

The OED defines a bribe as "Money etc. offered to procure (often illegal or dishonest) action or decision in favour of giver."

I've flipped through four dicts and the OED is the only one to even mention dishonesty and it clearly does not say that dishonesty is a necessary attribute of a bribe.

So you can have honest bribes?

ATG said:

Pedantry falls rather flat when the non-point your trying to make turns out to be mistaken.

Says the pedant who is seeking to avoid using the OED as a source because it contradicts his point...

[ATG]

I just quoted the OED to you.

[sidicks]

ATG said:

I just quoted the OED to you.

Which refers to 'often illegal or dishonest'?

Are those who are against the Tory-DUP deal suggesting that it is dishonest or not?

[ATG]

sidicks said:

ATG said:

I just quoted the OED to you.

Which refers to 'often illegal or dishonest'?

Correct! Now do I need to explain to you what "often" and "or" mean?

sidicks said:

Are those who are against the Tory-DUP deal suggesting that it is dishonest or not?

You're the one who keeps banging on about dishonesty. I for one find the deal distasteful but necessary and see no problem calling it a bribe.

[sidicks]

If you ignore the dishonest part, aren't there numerous things that could be categorised as bribery, which are generally not thought to be any such thing?

"The OED defines a bribe as "Money etc. offered to procure (often illegal or dishonest) action or decision in favour of giver."

For example, doesn't my employer give me wages to procure actions in their favour. Would you consider that falling under 'bribery' too?

ATG said:

You're the one who keeps banging on about dishonesty. I for one find the deal distasteful but necessary and see no problem calling it a bribe.

And (for consistency) presumably you'd also refer to the 2010 Tory-Lib Dem deal in the same way?

Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 15:29

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

I've not been proven wrong, you've tried to suggest I've said something that is not true.

At no point have I said that a Coalition and a 'confidence and supply' deal are the same. What I have said is that, in one crucial way - 'buying votes' they are effectively the same.

You seem to dispute that.

You are wrong. You are trying to find MO where you are right. If Lib-Dems went and said give us £10b and in return we'll vote for you, that would be buying votes. They did nothing of the kind. Read up on Lib-Dems voting record while in coalition.

sidick said:

If the DUP were already automatically going to vote in line with Tory policy on everything, then why was a deal necessary? If not, then they have clearly made a compromise.

ah the beauty of a binary world. It doesn't work like that.

May didn't have a clue which way DUP were going to vote. She needed absolute certainty, not chancing if they are going to support govt or not and on which issue. So, in order to secure the votes when needed, she paid for them. So your premise, is demonstrably false. You are trying and failing to find a scenario in which a deal with DUP is not a bribe.

sidick said:

Use whatever word helps your understanding.

I did. It's, wait for it, a bribe.

sidick said:

Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 14:07

Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th July 14:10

[sidicks]

jjlynn27 said:

You are wrong. You are trying to find MO where you are right. If Lib-Dems went and said give us £10b and in return we'll vote for you, that would be buying votes. They did nothing of the kind. Read up on Lib-Dems voting record while in coalition.

So you are saying that Tory policy was entirely unaffected by the Coalition and nothing they did (or did not do) was influenced by the Lib Dems?

Strange that the Lib Dems themselves would claim that by being in Coalition they had a lot of influence on government policy / spending:

https://www.markpack.org.uk/130977/how-much-influe...

So you appear to be wrong.

jjlynn27 said:

May didn't have a clue which way DUP were going to vote. She needed absolute certainty, not chancing if they are going to support govt or not and on which issue. So, in order to secure the votes when needed, she paid for them. So your premise, is demonstrably false. You are trying and failing to find a scenario in which a deal with DUP is not a bribe.

And yet you still seem unable to accept that the Tory government was forced to change their spending plans as a direct result of the Coalition and yet somehow this wasn't a bribe?!

[jjlynn27]

sidicks said:

jjlynn27 said:

You are wrong. You are trying to find MO where you are right. If Lib-Dems went and said give us £10b and in return we'll vote for you, that would be buying votes. They did nothing of the kind. Read up on Lib-Dems voting record while in coalition.

So you are saying that Tory policy was entirely unaffected by the Coalition and nothing they did (or did not do) was influenced by the Lib Dems?

Strange that the Lib Dems themselves would claim that by being in Coalition they had a lot of influence on government policy / spending:

https://www.markpack.org.uk/130977/how-much-influe...

So you appear to be wrong.

jjlynn27 said:

May didn't have a clue which way DUP were going to vote. She needed absolute certainty, not chancing if they are going to support govt or not and on which issue. So, in order to secure the votes when needed, she paid for them. So your premise, is demonstrably false. You are trying and failing to find a scenario in which a deal with DUP is not a bribe.

And yet you still seem unable to accept that the Tory government was forced to change their spending plans as a direct result of the Coalition and yet somehow this wasn't a bribe?!

I would be wrong if the world was binary as you are, desperately trying to present it. Of course they had influence on the govt. The whole point of Coalition. What they didn't do is 'give us the money and we'll vote as you tell us'. In order to get some things, they abandoned some of their policies, for example, tuition fees. It's called a compromise. Completely different to a bribe. Yes?

So desperate, it's delicious.