The 2015 General Election Megathread

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Phew. I thought it was down to that one poll that predicted a Yes vote like last time.

 

I heard that Standard Life are drawing up contingency plans to move their headquarters to Donetsk in light of the frightening general election polls in Scotland.

[JamboX2]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/nigel-farage-english-victims-racism-uk-scotland

 

Jesus. That man is an arse.

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

The cybernats will be seething at that.

 

Good ol' Nige. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

 

Maybe others will be seething at that too, not just the cybernats.  Seeing as how he is generally calling half the country racist. 

 

Anyway, he's a clown best ignored.

[freddiemac]

I heard that Standard Life are drawing up contingency plans to move their headquarters to Donetsk in light of the frightening general election polls in Scotland.[/quote common sense tells you edinburgh would be the biggest loser in scotland if we had Indy .standard life the banks and other major financial companies would relocate to their main customer base. The exception would possibly be aberdeen asset after ce martin gilbert stated before the referendum that he would happy to keep aa in Aberdeen. However aa have just been downgraded after losing ?25bn in lost business in 9 months.

[deesidejambo]

Probably does it, to get it right up you.

Whats your socio B double A.

Yes I thick your right about the first one. As for your second point.    I'm one of the ABCs.   I work part time on a zero-hours contract and I'll be voting Labour, not because its Labour, but because I think Ann Begg represents me and the nation better.

[deesidejambo]

Your relationship with your son is your business.

Its unfair to vilify large sections of the population because your son who you describe as a social security scrounger voted Yes.

Lots of perfectly respectable people voted Yes for very valid reasons. You have had digs at people who live in housing schemes for no other reason that you assume they must have voted Yes and therefore must be scroungers and work shy. i live in a housing scheme and have been greatly offended by some of your remarks. I still hold the view that one should not posts views on the internet that you wouldn't say to the same person in real life.   

Wrong.  My dig was explicitly at scroungers.   I did not say everyone who lives in scheme is therefore a scrounger.   But the fact remains, that the pre referendum polls continuously and repeatedly showed Socio DEs vote strong Yes, far more than the average of the population.  That is a fact I'm afraid.  My sons explicit reason for voting Yes was to get the bedroom tax banned.  Thats also a fact.   Of course that doesn't mean everyone is the same but it gives pointers to use in the analysis.

 

An SNP tactic, as espoused by Sturgeon, was to "kick the Tory Toffs".  Do you view that as legitimate?

[freddiemac]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/28/nigel-farage-english-victims-racism-uk-scotland

 

a lot of what farage says is true,I asked a lot of people why they were voting yes,and to be honest most of them didn't reply with any credible reason. The snp followers like to come across whiter than white but the most popular answer I got for voting Indy was because of the English. Very sad but unfortunately true.

[aussieh]

a lot of what farage says is true,I asked a lot of people why they were voting yes,and to be honest most of them didn't reply with any credible reason. The snp followers like to come across whiter than white but the most popular answer I got for voting Indy was because of the English. Very sad but unfortunately true.

Can u smell that, aye thats right.

BULLSHIT...

[JamboX2]

Can u smell that, aye thats right.

BULLSHIT...

How do you know what his experience was?

 

I know a lot of No voters who voted no because they didn't like Salmond.l I know Yes voters who voted Yes for hatred of Tories. Neither was a valid reason as an answer to that question, but it's true.

[Bring Back Paulo Sergio]

So its oor fault.

Saudi Arabia's fault.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

a lot of what farage says is true,I asked a lot of people why they were voting yes,and to be honest most of them didn't reply with any credible reason. The snp followers like to come across whiter than white but the most popular answer I got for voting Indy was because of the English. Very sad but unfortunately true.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

How do you know what his experience was?

 

I know a lot of No voters who voted no because they didn't like Salmond.l I know Yes voters who voted Yes for hatred of Tories. Neither was a valid reason as an answer to that question, but it's true.

They are single political beings blaming the English as a nation is a whole different thing.

[JamboX2]

They are single political beings blaming the English as a nation is a whole different thing.

And some will have used it as a reason to vote yes. Some, not all.

 

Scots can be as narrow minded, insular and idiotic as any other people.

Edited April 28, 2015 by JamboX2

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

And some will have used it as a reason to vote yes. Some, not all.

 

Scots can be as narrow minded, insular and idiotic as any other people.

As proven by this thread.

[freddiemac]

Can u smell that, aye thats right.

BULLSHIT...

???????

[aussieh]

???????

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I think youd make a Tory MP????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Boab]

The Indy issue is now becoming an issue which is going nowhere on this thread so I'll try and move on if anyone else wants to go forward here.

 

Was listening to Nicola Sturgeon on the radio today and she was being quizzed on Zero-Hours Contracts.

In one breath, stating she agreed with Labour and in the next, saying it suited some people.

Have to say I wasn't impressed with her answers.

My personal wish would be to ban them and create proper employment...so that's another tick in Labour's box.

Thoughts ?

[freddiemac]

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? I think youd make a Tory MP????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

?

[RosscoC]

The Indy issue is now becoming an issue which is going nowhere on this thread so I'll try and move on if anyone else wants to go forward here.

 

Was listening to Nicola Sturgeon on the radio today and she was being quizzed on Zero-Hours Contracts.

In one breath, stating she agreed with Labour and in the next, saying it suited some people.

Have to say I wasn't impressed with her answers.

My personal wish would be to ban them and create proper employment...so that's another tick in Labour's box.

Thoughts ?

Whenever you hear them talking about zero-hours contracts it's always prefixed with the word "exploitative".This is the get-out clause IMO.

 

Who decides whether a contract is exploitative or not? For that reason I think anyone hoping for a blanket ban is going to be disappointed. It's a headline.

Edited April 28, 2015 by RosscoC

[jambo1185]

An outright ban woukd be terrible policy. I needed zero hours at uni as i couldn't commit to 16/18 hours a week. I needed thr flexibility of 25 hours one week, 4 the next, 18 the week after. Many people on them like them.

 

Sledgehammer to crack a nut proposal.

[Gorgiewave]

An outright ban woukd be terrible policy. I needed zero hours at uni as i couldn't commit to 16/18 hours a week. I needed thr flexibility of 25 hours one week, 4 the next, 18 the week after. Many people on them like them.

 

Sledgehammer to crack a nut proposal.

 

Plenty of people will want and need full-time hours and will be getting much less. That should be banned, not what you mention.

[freddiemac]

An outright ban woukd be terrible policy. I needed zero hours at uni as i couldn't commit to 16/18 hours a week. I needed thr flexibility of 25 hours one week, 4 the next, 18 the week after. Many people on them like them.

Sledgehammer to crack a nut proposal.

you are right ,most people on zero hours because it suits them . However there will be many who are abused by their employers. It is politically fashionable to shout from the rooftops about ending zero hour contracts carte_Blanche. Even although for people like yourself it suits you. Sounds as if it would be another shambles.

[JamboX2]

The Indy issue is now becoming an issue which is going nowhere on this thread so I'll try and move on if anyone else wants to go forward here.

 

Was listening to Nicola Sturgeon on the radio today and she was being quizzed on Zero-Hours Contracts.

In one breath, stating she agreed with Labour and in the next, saying it suited some people.

Have to say I wasn't impressed with her answers.

My personal wish would be to ban them and create proper employment...so that's another tick in Labour's box.

Thoughts ?

The solution is that legislation regulate their use. But people working full time hours on them deserve certainty and clarity. It's unfair and exploitative to not know when you may be working. Dockers used to have to queue for work and it may not have been there to work. That was 60 years ago. In how modern age it's not fit for purpose for people trying to make a living and their way in the world. Personally I'm against them.

 

On Sturgeon, it's another "oh, it's bad, terrible and exploitative" (woo the left) "but, they work for some people and employers" (woo soft scottish right and small businesses). Such a airiness will be found out if they hold the amount of influence they claim they will.

Edited April 28, 2015 by JamboX2

[aussieh]

Tax rise ban, whats Cameron on.

Week to go prediction.

Labour 29

SNP 27

Conservative 2

LibDem 1

[freddiemac]

another car crash interview by sturgeon with ponsonby on stv. "ffa would cost us around ?8bn every year for 5years nicola ,where would you make cuts ,or would  you just raise taxes".   "we would phase ffa in over 7 years and grow the economy to pay for it". "7 years ? you said you could do indy in 18 months nicola,you are trying to kick this into the long grass". another big financially illiterate moment for snp to add to yesterdays revelations from danny alexander that snp were warned about throwing ?10m awayon vat payments for fire scotland .

[jambo1185]

Plenty of people will want and need full-time hours and will be getting much less. That should be banned, not what you mention.

Exactly but thats not what is being proposed.

[TheMaganator]

How widely used are zero hours contracts?

 

There's two or three people here that say they've had them and that they suited what they required. Would an outright ban not harm those people?

 

There must be a way around it - an outright ban seems silly to me.

[aussieh]

How widely used are zero hours contracts?

 

There's two or three people here that say they've had them and that they suited what they required. Would an outright ban not harm those people?

 

There must be a way around it - an outright ban seems silly to me.

It should be banned, if people say they like it go part time(flexi time), oh thats right your employer would need to pay holiday pay, sick pay etc...

Some on here working casual by the sounds of it.

Edited April 29, 2015 by aussieh

[ToadKiller Dog]

National insurance doesn't kickin for the employer until an employee earns over ?156 , so they avoid that , it cuts down on their sick pay , holiday pay and pension costs .

So for a rival to compete with a zero employer it will have to do the same .

So it might only be around 2.6 % of the total workforce just now but it's growing year on year .

 

Also zero employers tend to employ more zero hour staff even when they have the capacity to offer existing staff on part time or zero hours full time hours .

[Mr Brightside]

How widely used are zero hours contracts?

 

There's two or three people here that say they've had them and that they suited what they required. Would an outright ban not harm those people?

 

There must be a way around it - an outright ban seems silly to me.

I was on one when I was at uni and the flexibility suited me. There are at least 3 people in my current workplace on them all through the employees choice. You still accrue holidays on a pro rats basis, not sure about sick pay. An outright ban would be overkill but the system needs revised to give some people more certaintity of hours on a regular basis.

[TheMaganator]

So it's quite complex then as it seems to work well for some but is shite for others.

 

Seems like an overhaul is required rather than an outright ban.

[Stuart Lyon]

If I ask Neil Hay, the SNP candidate in this constituency, if he disagrees with any of his party's policies will I get an honest answer given that they are banned from publicly commenting on such matters? How can I trust someone put in this position?

[ToadKiller Dog]

Not my usual reading but a blog from the spectator about zeros

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/zero-hours-contracts-have-nothing-to-do-with-flexibility-and-everything-to-do-with-dodging-tax/

[Thunderstruck]

So it's quite complex then as it seems to work well for some but is shite for others.

 

Seems like an overhaul is required rather than an outright ban.

That's right. The first thing that is required is that there is a better understanding of the nature of the issue. Governments can then seek to legislate to remove the worst excesses.

 

This bit of work by Unison is interesting

 

https://www.unison.org.uk/upload/sharepoint/Toweb/Zero%20Hours%20Factsheet.pdf

[Stuart Lyon]

Is this situation (zero hours contracts) not similar to the situation whereby employers used overtime to avoid hiring additional staff to save on things like NI, pensions, holidays? 

[2NaFish]

So it's quite complex then as it seems to work well for some but is shite for others.

 

Seems like an overhaul is required rather than an outright ban.

 

Balls was asked about the hypocrisy of campaigning for an end to exzploitative zero hours contracts at an event recently at the concert halls in glasgow. A venue where dozens of folk work on zero hours contracts. Many are pensioners and only want a few hours from time to time, either to supplement their pension or just to keep them busy. Some have childcare needs and enjoy the flexibility. Some have full time jobs elsehwere and just want to supplement their income. I know this as I work for the same company.

 

Balls arsed up his reply by waffling about society and moved along asap. All he had to do was take advantage of the fact that the people at the concert halls, afaik, aren't being exploited. Clearly people are being taking advantage of on zero hours contracts; they get shafted on holidays, pensions and can be discarded at a moments notice in scenes reminiscent of the lowest points of the Joad family. It also lets governments pretend there are lots of people in employment, when often they are not in the slightest.

 

But there are people on 2hrs contracts who get almost the exact same shitty deal and are still expected to work 50hr weeks - and there you have it. It's not as simple as zero hours = bad. It's exploitation = bad. But explaining all that exploitation entails is difficult to fit on a pop up poster, so they went for zero hours = bad. It's a facile response to a complicated situation. It's an example of a bad policy which is good politics.

[RosscoC]

Douglas Alexander said Labour would ban all zero hours contracts, Jim Murphy said they would only ban "exploitative" contracts and Ed Balls said employers would need to give employees a "proper" contract after 12 weeks. Crystal clear.

[Stuart Lyon]

RosscoC - that just demonstrates a developing policy towards zero hours contracts if the statements were made in that order.

[2NaFish]

RosscoC - that just demonstrates a developing policy towards zero hours contracts if the statements were made in that order.

 

It demonstrates they don't have a scooby. Developing policy? The election is in one week.

 

Why are they developing policy a week before the election.

[TheMaganator]

It demonstrates they don't have a scooby. Developing policy? The election is in one week.

 

Why are they developing policy a week before the election.

Indeed. It's a little late in the day. They should have given this proper thought months ago.

[jambo1185]

Yeah you accrue holiday pay and all that jazz on a zero hours contract.

 

An outright ban would cause a lot of people a lot of problems, such as the Glasgow Concert hall already mentioned. Where coincidentally i know a few people who work.

 

How you actually legislate for tightening these up im not sure.

Edited April 29, 2015 by jambo1185

[jambo1185]

It demonstrates they don't have a scooby. Developing policy? The election is in one week.

 

Why are they developing policy a week before the election.

Bingo. Someone thought it would be a good idea then they actually did some research and it ruined the policy due to the number of people surveyed who like being on the contracts. They've been trying to backtrack and reword the rhetoric ever since without actually putting forward a concrete proposal.

[jambos are go!]

A fulltime living wage should support an average family without the need for in work benefits in an ideall world. Some might argue that that is a simplistic approach but the balance hasIMO shifted too far in favour of the employer. Exploitative zero hours contracts are an example of this. I listen to people who like them but as a taxpayer I would like to know how they impact the cost of benefits and government income.

 

 

 

Using decent wages to reduce the defecit and the size of the state whats wrong with that. Trade Unions used to help with that but these days are gone.

[2NaFish]

A fulltime living wage should support an average family without the need for in work benefits in an ideall world. Some might argue that that is a simplistic approach but the balance hasIMO shifted too far in favour of the employer. Exploitative zero hours contracts are an example of this. I listen to people who like them but as a taxpayer I would like to know how they impact the cost of benefits and government income.

 

 

 

Using decent wages to reduce the defecit and the size of the state whats wrong with that. Trade Unions used to help with that but these days are gone.

 

Mind what i said earlier on about Balls waffling on because they've just created a poor policy which they hope won't be scrutinized and will be popular? This is an example of that. Scratch the surface and it's just meaningless.

[Boris]

A fulltime living wage should support an average family without the need for in work benefits in an ideall world. Some might argue that that is a simplistic approach but the balance hasIMO shifted too far in favour of the employer. Exploitative zero hours contracts are an example of this. I listen to people who like them but as a taxpayer I would like to know how they impact the cost of benefits and government income.

 

 

 

Using decent wages to reduce the defecit and the size of the state whats wrong with that. Trade Unions used to help with that but these days are gone.

 

Good to see we agree on some things!

 

Mind what i said earlier on about Balls waffling on because they've just created a poor policy which they hope won't be scrutinized and will be popular? This is an example of that. Scratch the surface and it's just meaningless.

 

Sadly, this seems to be the case in politics these days.

[2NaFish]

Yeah you accrue holiday pay and all that jazz on a zero hours contract.

 

 

I should have expanded on that. The idea of an exploitative zero hours contract is one where the person is effectively doing a full-time job. When everything is fine they accrue holiday pay at a normal level, this is true. If the person is ill then they're left to their own devices, whereas someone on a non-exploitative contract would be protected.

 

Now, in the situation where someone is getting the benefits of a zero hours contract - ie it allows them to do lots of work when they want to and little or none where they don't - it can be argued that people don't deserve to accrue benefits when they are ill, or something similar. 

 

Where both parties are capable of benefitting, then zero hours is clearly acceptable, if not outright good. Where the employer is getting all the benefit of a full time worker but doesnt have to look after their employee then we're essentially endorsing a Dickensian view of worker relations.

[AndrewB]

Are there no Natural Law Party candidates this time?  I enjoyed their "Yogic Flying" Party Election Broadcasts two or three elections back.

[Thunderstruck]

So you support the SNP policy of a review of Zero Hours Contracts then?

Please read this from 2013...

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/zero-hours.21781350

 

"In the NHS, 10 of Scotland's 14 health boards also said they had staff on zero-hours contracts or working in 'nurse banks'."

 

Who was Health Minister in 2013?

[deesidejambo]

I work a zero-hours contract, along with about 50 others in my workplace.    If they are "banned" the workplace will close immediately, putting 50 people out of work.  

 

The truth is they wont be banned.   Thet centre where I work relies on flexible hours, dictated by client demand.   Not a single person working here has a problem with the contracts and I am unaware of anyone working elsewhere who has a problem with them.

 

People jumping on the "they should all be banned" bandwagon are mistaken.

[Boris]

I work a zero-hours contract, along with about 50 others in my workplace.    If they are "banned" the workplace will close immediately, putting 50 people out of work.  

 

The truth is they wont be banned.   Thet centre where I work relies on flexible hours, dictated by client demand.   Not a single person working here has a problem with the contracts and I am unaware of anyone working elsewhere who has a problem with them.

 

People jumping on the "they should all be banned" bandwagon are mistaken.

 

I think that's how the argument is progressing, reading above.  If you are happy with them, fine, however I take, and agree with 2na's point,  that

 

"Where both parties are capable of benefitting, then zero hours is clearly acceptable, if not outright good. Where the employer is getting all the benefit of a full time worker but doesn't have to look after their employee then we're essentially endorsing a Dickensian view of worker relations."