Popular Post bickster Posted September 22, 2014 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted September 22, 2014 Christ, they've been promised that the UK Gov will maintain a disproportionate level of public spending per head in Scotland, their MP's will still be able to vote in Westminster on laws that only relate to England (a disgrace Cameron is rightly trying to address) and the more sensible of their voters have ensured Scotland won't become the new Haiti without sunshine. No pleasing some people. Starting to think that I wish they voted yes now awol. absolute ungrateful fools (not everyone but a majority of them) I think you'll find 45% is a minority 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chrisp65 Posted September 22, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted September 22, 2014 It'll be interesting to see if the BBC keep us all so well informed at the general election on how Asda and RBS would like us all to vote. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 22, 2014 Share Posted September 22, 2014 (edited) What's this nonsense about London MPs and their input in to London transport? Edited September 22, 2014 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 It would seem that devo-max creates rather more problems for the UK constitution than an independent Scotland would have done. Answering the West Lothian question seems like a good idea in principle but it is easy to envisage a Labour government which could only implement half its policies, if robbed of their decisive Scottish seats/votes on crucial issues. Whatever powers are eventually devolved would be stripped from any Labour government in London should they not have a majority in rUK. People get excited by the idea of devolving powers away from London and into the regions but they don't realise how financially dependent they are on taxes generated in London. The country is spending 10% more than it is raising in taxes - thus the deficit - but some of the regions (NE) are spending 20% more than they raise locally by taxation' so for many regions devolution would not do anything positive. But this is very much a Left perspective because I am sure that the Tories will see many advantages in a federalised UK, where regions only spend what they raise locally in taxation. I am sure Cameron is rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of how well devolution will serve the Tories. Those who dread what new taxes Miliband might be dreaming up, might think likewise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Those who dread what new taxes Miliband might be dreaming up, might think likewise. OT .. but he must have spent that Mansion tax about 14 times over by now !! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Interesting stats on the voting (if true) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 but there was no exit poll? looks about right, but can't be very accurate as the votes on the day were a little off the predicted but the old being small c conservative is fairly standard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 23, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 23, 2014 The interesting bit is the 16-24 age group. Poll data in the run up for months suggested that the 16-18 age group were consistently in the NO camp and thats the group that Salmond fought tooth and nail to get enfranchised.Big Fail on his behalf.Then the closer people get to pensionable age the more likely they are to think… shit wheres my state pension heading here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Struggling to understand why '60-64' needed it's own band. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 The interesting bit is the 16-24 age group. Poll data in the run up for months suggested that the 16-18 age group were consistently in the NO camp and thats the group that Salmond fought tooth and nail to get enfranchised.There was an Ashcroft poll in the Grauniad (here) which had the 18-24 group broken down as follows:Scottish independence: poll reveals who voted, how and why16-17: Yes - 71%; No - 29%18-24: Yes - 48%; No - 52% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 He should have tried to get 12-16 year olds the vote as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 But generally, lowering the age to 16 should be a good thing. Either that, or raise the age of everything else to 18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I think all voting at a General Election should be done through a phone in following a television special in which all the parties have a 10 minute slot to sell their vision for the country. They could even sing or dance those visions. No restrictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 I think all voting at a General Election should be done through a phone in following a television special in which all the parties have a 10 minute slot to sell their vision for the country. They could even sing or dance those visions. No restrictions. Arguably we'd have Nick Clegg as PM right now had we done that in 2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 23, 2014 Share Posted September 23, 2014 Whatever happened to Nick Clegg? What does he do now? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post limpid Posted September 23, 2014 Administrator Popular Post Share Posted September 23, 2014 I think all voting at a General Election should be done through a phone in following a television special in which all the parties have a 10 minute slot to sell their vision for the country. They could even sing or dance those visions. No restrictions. And anyone that votes in it doesn't get to vote in the real election? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 But generally, lowering the age to 16 should be a good thing. Either that, or raise the age of everything else to 18. When a 16-year-old runs off with their schoolteacher they are deemed too emotionally immature to make an informed decision, but simultaneously they are considered mature enough to vote. I can't square this circle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islingtonclaret Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 My take on it is the 25-39 are the ones ruined by the crash, bank bailouts and austerity measures with no prospect of home ownership or already owning and defaulting on a recently taken out mortgage/reposession. I say 'my take' mainly because I'm part of that group. If I was their age, which I am, I'd be pissed, which I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted September 24, 2014 But generally, lowering the age to 16 should be a good thing.Either that, or raise the age of everything else to 18. When a 16-year-old runs off with their schoolteacher they are deemed too emotionally immature to make an informed decision, but simultaneously they are considered mature enough to vote. I can't square this circle.When a 16 year old runs off with their schoolteacher, the outcry has nothing to do with the emotional immaturity of the victim. It is however everything to do with the schoolteacher abusing his/her position of responsibility for that person. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 24, 2014 Share Posted September 24, 2014 But generally, lowering the age to 16 should be a good thing. Either that, or raise the age of everything else to 18. When a 16-year-old runs off with their schoolteacher they are deemed too emotionally immature to make an informed decision, but simultaneously they are considered mature enough to vote. I can't square this circle. When a 16 year old runs off with their schoolteacher, the outcry has nothing to do with the emotional immaturity of the victim. It is however everything to do with the schoolteacher abusing his/her position of responsibility for that person. I thought the outcry was usually "jammy git" followed by trying to work out how the teacher has time for extra marital affairs what with all that course work to prepare , papers to mark and so on 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts