A very complex sentence

< Previous | Next >
Hi,everyone.
I read this sentence from Bagehot of The Economist and found it too complex for me understand:

Gut feeling tells many Britons the Tories are best-suited to this job. But the hunch is more emotional than ideological—indeed, the thought that the drastic public-spending cuts a Tory government might make were motivated by doctrinaire conviction, rather than necessity, would diminish the party’s appeal rather than enhance it.

To my understanding, it means: British people trust the Tories out of instinct than logic. They think a Tory goverment might make drastic public-spending cuts , but this thought is motivated by doctrinaire conviction, not pragmatic analyse.

Then goes the cause " would diminish the party’s appeal rather than enhance it. ", I fail to catch the subject, I wonder what would diminish the party’s appeal rather than enhance it? please.
 
  • Cagey

    post mod (English Only / Latin)
    English - US
    The thought that the Tories making the cuts out of "doctrinaire conviction" and not be because the cuts were necessary would diminish the Tory party's appeal.

    This thought is the subject of "would diminish the party’s appeal rather than enhance it".
     

    LikeBarleyBending

    Senior Member
    China, Chinese
    The thought that the Tories making the cuts out of "doctrinaire conviction" and not be because the cuts were necessary would diminish the Tory party's appeal.

    This thought is the subject of "would diminish the party’s appeal rather than enhance it".

    I go with Cagey.

    If you see the structure in this way, you will get it:

    the thought {appositive clause for "the throught":that the drastic public-spending cuts (attributive clause for "the drastic public-spending cuts" :a Tory government might make) were motivated by doctrinaire conviction (adverbial phrase: rather than necessity)}, would diminish the party’s appeal rather than enhance it.

    Hope this helps.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top