The 2015 General Election Megathread

[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.

And for clarity - I get holiday pay.

 

Its true that I am not paid if I don't attend work, for example due to illness, but the converse of that is I can take as much holiday as I want, whenever I want.    For example I got some work with another Company for a month in Jan so I was able to go and do that then returning to my normal workplace.      That is the good thing about a pool of 50 of us - everything is flexible and we work in collaboration with the management to get the best for all..  The centre stays open, and we all get the work we want.

 

One of us chose to work pretty much full-time hours, so he was taken on as staff, again a benefit to him and the company.

 

Zero-hours Contracts are very valuable to the economy, and I have yet to meet anyone who has been "exploited"

[deesidejambo]

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."

I agree with the last sentence as a possible downside, except that I have yet to meet a single person who actually sufferes from this, as opposed to large numbers who like them, so I think the balance is OK and hence Labour and SNP are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Will still vote Labour though.  Edit - will still vote for Anne Begg - thats different.

Edited April 29, 2015 by deesidejambo

[Nookie Bear]

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?

 

You'll get an honest answer.

 

I'm going to ask him if he is hoping for a cold winter to get rid of those pesky old NO voters.

[deesidejambo]

You'll get an honest answer.

 

I'm going to ask him if he is hoping for a cold winter to get rid of those pesky old NO voters.

Thats an interesing thought - are the old No voters a dying (no pun intended) breed, such that the next generation of oldies will be Yes?  Or do people actuallly become wiser with age, such that the next generation of oldies will turn to No voting?  Discuss.

[Boris]

Thats an interesing thought - are the old No voters a dying (no pun intended) breed, such that the next generation of oldies will be Yes?  Or do people actuallly become wiser with age, such that the next generation of oldies will turn to No voting?  Discuss.

 

Hahaha - loaded question!

 

I saw some demographic graph showing that the 25-50 (?) year olds voted Yes.  Will they continue?  Who knows.

 

Given the meltdown in the Labour vote (going by the polls) I don't think we can take any age groups view as a given.

[deesidejambo]

Hahaha - loaded question!

 

I saw some demographic graph showing that the 25-50 (?) year olds voted Yes.  Will they continue?  Who knows.

 

Given the meltdown in the Labour vote (going by the polls) I don't think we can take any age groups view as a given.

The demographic is correct.   I'm not sure it went up to 50 though - I think about 45 it "equalised".  But as posted before, based on pre-referendum polls, the very young new voters were Nos, which was a bit of an oggie by Eck.

 

The demographics are pretty much the same in the current Election polls - Old voters tend to be Tories.   Also, older voters are more likely to vote, whereas younger ones, who tend to be Lab/SNP, have a lower liklihood.    The polls are split by age, class, gender, liklihood to vote etc and make interesting reading for those who want to see potentially unpalatable, yet robust, data. 

 

I probably misquote, but when Churchill was aked why he changed parties from Liberal to Conservative, he gave the following reply -

 

If your not Liberal by the time you are 20, you have no heart, but if you are not Tory by the time you are 30, you have no brain!

 

Don't know if thats true.

 

Back to demographics - beware the "silent Tories" as coined during the Major election.   They are there, but many probably vote UKIP now.   If Farage contiues to make a nob of himself, watch for a swing back.  Or maybe a tactical voing agreement in England?

 

And a quid says Eck gets his bubble burst by tactical voting in Gordon.

[2NaFish]

The demographic is correct.   I'm not sure it went up to 50 though - I think about 45 it "equalised".  But as posted before, based on pre-referendum polls, the very young new voters were Nos, which was a bit of an oggie by Eck.

 

 

 

That was the prediction, but research since has shown that 16-18yr olds overwhelmingly voted yes. You've peddled this line before, i believe, and you should really stop it.

[deesidejambo]

That was the prediction, but research since has shown that 16-18yr olds overwhelmingly voted yes. You've peddled this line before, i believe, and you should really stop it.

Show me this "Research".      If that is indeed the case, then where did the extra No votes come from?   The polls were predicting in the main less than 55% No, incluging the No majority of 16/17 year olds that was apparent in the polls..   But in reality it was 55% No and if, as you say, the young were massively Yes, where did the extra No votes then come from?  Over to you.

[flecktimus]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318815-stvipsos-mori-poll-snp-set-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/

 

SNP all 59 Seats 

[XB52]

Show me this "Research".      If that is indeed the case, then where did the extra No votes come from?   The polls were predicting in the main less than 55% No, incluging the No majority of 16/17 year olds that was apparent in the polls..   But in reality it was 55% No and if, as you say, the young were massively Yes, where did the extra No votes then come from?  Over to you.

The over 55s voted No by quite a large margin. Without them it would have been a YES. As more and more peoploe start to get their news through online means, the impact of the inherent unionist bias of the papers and the BBC will have less and less impact.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the election so not sure why the unionists keep harping on about it.

Latest poll out, Labour down to 20%, tories breathing down their necks on 17%. SNP once more over 50% 

[deesidejambo]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318815-stvipsos-mori-poll-snp-set-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/

 

SNP all 59 Seats 

Cue labour big-hitters on the way North in the last days.  Maybe they will unwrap Gordon Brown again.

 

This plays into Tory hands - if we end up with a Lab/SNP "agreement" in Westminster, the English voters will not be happy, especially if its seen that the SNP are running the Gov't.    Could be a very difficult Gov't to manage!     Eck for prime minister!

[2NaFish]

Show me this "Research".      If that is indeed the case, then where did the extra No votes come from?   The polls were predicting in the main less than 55% No, incluging the No majority of 16/17 year olds that was apparent in the polls..   But in reality it was 55% No and if, as you say, the young were massively Yes, where did the extra No votes then come from?  Over to you.

 

Lord Ashcroft conducted research that says that 71% of 16-18yr olds voted yes. https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/512895230132371456

 

If you'd like to argue with one of the top pollsters in the country, a man who at the time was deputy chairman of the conservative party with zero inclination to massage the figures in favour of yes, then by all mean have at it.

 

To answer your - utterly spurious - question about where the extra no voters came from if more 16-18yr olds voted yes than predicted. Well, and i dont think i'm being overly controversial here, but i'd expect they came from groups that weren't 16-18yrs old. A detailed breakdown and comparison of the predictions and the polls would tell you exactly where, but it's, as i said earlier, utterly spurious and just an attempt from you to try and distort the facts because you're annoyed you don't get to peddle your lie anymore.

[deesidejambo]

The over 55s voted No by quite a large margin. Without them it would have been a YES. As more and more peoploe start to get their news through online means, the impact of the inherent unionist bias of the papers and the BBC will have less and less impact.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the election so not sure why the unionists keep harping on about it.

Latest poll out, Labour down to 20%, tories breathing down their necks on 17%. SNP once more over 50% 

Yes i know that but the figures don't add up.   The pre-ref polls showed about 50-52% No.  That included the 16/17s which were showing No in the polls.   The final result was 55%, and it is 2NaFishes contention that the 16/17s actually voted overwhelmingly Yes, against the pollsters data. 

 

So if that is the case, there were a load of voters who told the Polls No (i.e. the 16/17 year-olds) but actually voted Yes, yet the final result ened up even more No than the polls.  I wonder who the naughty people were who told the pollsters one thing, then did another?

 

The point is that in this election, the same will happen.    It always does, as its not "right on" to admit you will vote Tory (or No, as above).      Anyway I'm still on for a quid that tactical voting will gain increasing influence, as I am aware of a number of folk in Gordon who are going to vote tactically to keep eck out.  Whether that will be enough remains to be seen, but I would't ignore it, in fact I'm away to Betfair to see the odds.

[2NaFish]

Yes i know that but the figures don't add up.   The pre-ref polls showed about 50-52% No.  That included the 16/17s which were showing No in the polls.   The final result was 55%, and it is 2NaFishes contention that the 16/17s actually voted overwhelmingly Yes, against the pollsters data. 

 

So if that is the case, there were a load of voters who told the Polls No (i.e. the 16/17 year-olds) but actually voted Yes, yet the final result ened up even more No than the polls.  I wonder who the naughty people were who told the pollsters one thing, then did another?

 

The point is that in this election, the same will happen.    It always does, as its not "right on" to admit you will vote Tory (or No, as above).      Anyway I'm still on for a quid that tactical voting will gain increasing influence, as I am aware of a number of folk in Gordon who are going to vote tactically to keep eck out.  Whether that will be enough remains to be seen, but I would't ignore it, in fact I'm away to Betfair to see the odds.

 

 

I still don't see how anything you said disqualifies our best evidence, ashcroft's poll, for how young people voted. Where the votes come from to equalize the discrepency is, once again, utterly spurious.

 

You also seem to be implying that all polls should match up and that they should even out exactly, despite the fact that they are only samples and are taken at different times. 

 

To put a full stop on this sidetrack however, our best data shows that youngsters overwhelmingly voted yes. If you can't find data that supersedes this, please stop saying things to the contrary.

[deesidejambo]

Lord Ashcroft conducted research that says that 71% of 16-18yr olds voted yes. https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/512895230132371456

 

If you'd like to argue with one of the top pollsters in the country, a man who at the time was deputy chairman of the conservative party with zero inclination to massage the figures in favour of yes, then by all mean have at it.

 

To answer your - utterly spurious - question about where the extra no voters came from if more 16-18yr olds voted yes than predicted. Well, and i dont think i'm being overly controversial here, but i'd expect they came from groups that weren't 16-18yrs old. A detailed breakdown and comparison of the predictions and the polls would tell you exactly where, but it's, as i said earlier, utterly spurious and just an attempt from you to try and distort the facts because you're annoyed you don't get to peddle your lie anymore.

I was not lying - I simply quoted, always, my sources were the pre-election polls, of which there were many.   That is factual so please don't accure me of lying.  Its up to you and me which to believe, the pre-election, or the exit polls.   But I wasn't lying.    I was quoting public data.   

 

Anyway, the coming election will see the same - I expect, and I'm happy to be pulled up on it by yoursefl after May 7th, that there will be a shift to the Tories on election day, not because of a real shift, but because people tell porkies to the pollsters.    You can of course take the piss out of me on May 8th if you like, but if Eck gets a kicking I will be unbearable so fill your boots on me if the polls turn out to be accurate.

[Clonlara Erin]

http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/318815-stvipsos-mori-poll-snp-set-to-win-all-scots-seats-at-general-election/

 

SNP all 59 Seats 

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Tears and snot from JKBs better together troops if this happens

[deesidejambo]

Tears and snot from JKBs better together troops if this happens

Referendum in 2016 here we come.     

[HaymarketJambo]

SNP to win all 59 Seats - Well the House of Lords will be a busy place at Christmas Time with all these ex Scottish Labour/Libdems MPS, and the sole Tory, heading towards a nice wee earner there.

[Coco]

I still don't see how anything you said disqualifies our best evidence, ashcroft's poll, for how young people voted. Where the votes come from to equalize the discrepency is, once again, utterly spurious.

 

You also seem to be implying that all polls should match up and that they should even out exactly, despite the fact that they are only samples and are taken at different times. 

 

To put a full stop on this sidetrack however, our best data shows that youngsters overwhelmingly voted yes. If you can't find data that supersedes this, please stop saying things to the contrary.

 

 

Insufficiently interested to go and check but wasn't this segment of Ashcroft's poll a sample of about a dozen young voters?  Seem to remember something like that.

[AndrewB]

Well the House of Lords will be a busy place at Christmas Time with all these ex Scottish Labour/Libdems MPS, and the sole Tory, heading towards a nice wee earner there.

Where failed politicians go to snooze.

Lord Murray of Tynecastle Park has a ring to it, though.

[2NaFish]

I was not lying - I simply quoted, always, my sources were the pre-election polls, of which there were many.   That is factual so please don't accure me of lying.  Its up to you and me which to believe, the pre-election, or the exit polls.   But I wasn't lying.    I was quoting public data.   

 

Anyway, the coming election will see the same - I expect, and I'm happy to be pulled up on it by yoursefl after May 7th, that there will be a shift to the Tories on election day, not because of a real shift, but because people tell porkies to the pollsters.    You can of course take the piss out of me on May 8th if you like, but if Eck gets a kicking I will be unbearable so fill your boots on me if the polls turn out to be accurate.

 

Saying something incorrect without knowing the truth is just being incorrect. But this has already been addressed, and peddling things you know not to be true is a lie. But you're just trying to turn this in to a personal thing because you've been shown up and can't resort to fact.

 

Everyone thinks pollsters are constantly lied to when they're not hearing what they want. You were happy to quote pollsters on the previous page when you thought they backed up your views on young voters.

 

 

Insufficiently interested to go and check but wasn't this segment of Ashcroft's poll a sample of about a dozen young voters?  Seem to remember something like that.

 

2000 adults surveyed for this one. I don't doubt other polls were conducted that were pretty dubious, and i think i recall the one you mention, but this one looks reasonably decent.

[GBJambo]

Referendum in 2016 here we come.

Looking forward to it. Just like September there will be more meltdowns on here and on social media when it's a no again

[deesidejambo]

Insufficiently interested to go and check but wasn't this segment of Ashcroft's poll a sample of about a dozen young voters?  Seem to remember something like that.

No it was a larger population, but it didn't say how many were young voters.  It was criticised by some academics as being unrepresentative but the issue is that if, for example, it was "correct" then all the Pre-election polls were "wrong" as young people, for some strange reason, were telling pollsters they would vote No, whilst in reality they voted Yes.    Now that is odd.

 

I'm still up for a quid if Eck gets his landslide booted back to him though.

[jack D and coke]

The over 55s voted No by quite a large margin. Without them it would have been a YES. As more and more peoploe start to get their news through online means, the impact of the inherent unionist bias of the papers and the BBC will have less and less impact.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the election so not sure why the unionists keep harping on about it.

Latest poll out, Labour down to 20%, tories breathing down their necks on 17%. SNP once more over 50%

I'd love to see the Tories overtake Labour into 2nd I really would. Absolutely routed and pushed into 3rd by the party they began the demonisation of 30 years ago.

 

What goes around comes around.

[deesidejambo]

Saying something incorrect without knowing the truth is just being incorrect. But this has already been addressed, and peddling things you know not to be true is a lie. But you're just trying to turn this in to a personal thing because you've been shown up and can't resort to fact.

 

Everyone thinks pollsters are constantly lied to when they're not hearing what they want. You were happy to quote pollsters on the previous page when you thought they backed up your views on young voters.

 

 

 

2000 adults surveyed for this one. I don't doubt other polls were conducted that were pretty dubious, and i think i recall the one you mention, but this one looks reasonably decent.

Sorry but thats not correct.  You accuse me of being a liar.   You base that accusation on the Ashcroft poll, which you believe to be the "truth", even though you have no idea how many young people were phoned. 

 

I repeat, you can believe your poll results,thats your prerogative that I respect, and I'll believe the others, but accusing me of lying is not on.

[Boris]

SNP to win all 59 Seats - Well the House of Lords will be a busy place at Christmas Time with all these ex Scottish Labour/Libdems MPS, and the sole Tory, heading towards a nice wee earner there.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens to the House of Lords should Labour be in charge.  They want to abolish it don't they, or rather, make it democratically accountable by being elected.

 

Wonder who Scotland would elect?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

A week of campaigning to go and quite frankly, the only party who've done well so far are the SNP.

 

Conservatives - dull and uninspiring

Labour - soundbites, soundbites, soundbites

Lib Dems - yeah

Greens - how did she ever get chosen as leader?

UKIP - shown up as the populist idiots they are

[jambo1185]

Lord Ashcroft conducted research that says that 71% of 16-18yr olds voted yes. https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/512895230132371456

 

If you'd like to argue with one of the top pollsters in the country, a man who at the time was deputy chairman of the conservative party with zero inclination to massage the figures in favour of yes, then by all mean have at it.

 

To answer your - utterly spurious - question about where the extra no voters came from if more 16-18yr olds voted yes than predicted. Well, and i dont think i'm being overly controversial here, but i'd expect they came from groups that weren't 16-18yrs old. A detailed breakdown and comparison of the predictions and the polls would tell you exactly where, but it's, as i said earlier, utterly spurious and just an attempt from you to try and distort the facts because you're annoyed you don't get to peddle your lie anymore.

The Ashcroft poll for that age group was immediately discredited due to a tiny sample size. It was 14 or something. Quite a lot of other senior pollsters immediately pointed it out as too small to be usable for weighting to give an indicative national view and that it should be taken with a pinch of salt. Sample sizes for all other age groups were fine.

 

 

I think lots of school referendum returned a no vote which is where the belief younger voters were not as strongly pro-indy but the truth is we probably wont know for sure.

 

I suspect they were in favour by a small margin, maybe even 51/49

Edited April 29, 2015 by jambo1185

[2NaFish]

Sorry but thats not correct.  You accuse me of being a liar.   You base that accusation on the Ashcroft poll, which you believe to be the "truth", even though you have no idea how many young people were phoned. 

 

I repeat, you can believe your poll results,thats your prerogative that I respect, and I'll believe the others, but accusing me of lying is not on.

 

I repeat, you've already peddled the line and had it clarified and continue to peddle it. That's lying. 

 

You shouldn't lie, it's bad. I'll leave it at that as you're getting worked up because you don't what it means. So you can come back with whatever you need to say to justify yourself, but it'll only be to yourself.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Looking forward to it. Just like September there will be more meltdowns on here and on social media when it's a no again

Somewhat like the melt down on here looking at the polls and all you have in the tank is let's turn a GE thread into indy2. Feel free to count back the posts about who talks more about Indy unionist or nationist.

[Stuart Lyon]

Jambo 1185 - you should know by now that the SNP (and its supporters are never wrong) so just wait for the comeback to tell you so.

[AndrewB]

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Post-referendum-poll-tables-Sept-2014.pdf

 

There were fourteen 16-17s polled by Ashcroft in an overall sample of 2000 (in the words of Bruce Springsteen, "not many, not many").

[deesidejambo]

I repeat, you've already peddled the line and had it clarified and continue to peddle it. That's lying. 

 

You shouldn't lie, it's bad. I'll leave it at that as you're getting worked up because you don't what it means. So you can come back with whatever you need to say to justify yourself, but it'll only be to yourself.

you clarified nothing mate.  You just chose your own poll, which was disputed by others, and was based on an unknown sample size for the age-group (apparently confirmed by other poster as being only 14 people!!!).       And you call me a liar.   

[TheMaganator]

Lord Ashcroft conducted research that says that 71% of 16-18yr olds voted yes. https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/512895230132371456

 

If you'd like to argue with one of the top pollsters in the country, a man who at the time was deputy chairman of the conservative party with zero inclination to massage the figures in favour of yes, then by all mean have at it.

 

To answer your - utterly spurious - question about where the extra no voters came from if more 16-18yr olds voted yes than predicted. Well, and i dont think i'm being overly controversial here, but i'd expect they came from groups that weren't 16-18yrs old. A detailed breakdown and comparison of the predictions and the polls would tell you exactly where, but it's, as i said earlier, utterly spurious and just an attempt from you to try and distort the facts because you're annoyed you don't get to peddle your lie anymore.

The polling sample for that demographic was 14 people, was it not?

[deesidejambo]

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Post-referendum-poll-tables-Sept-2014.pdf

 

There were fourteen 16-17s polled by Ashcroft in an overall sample of 2000 (in the words of Bruce Springsteen, "not many, not many").

Thank you. 

[deesidejambo]

The polling sample for that demographic was 14 people, was it not?

Beware you may be accused of lying.

[2NaFish]

It's the best available data, to put worse data in front of it, in full knowledge of this, is lying. That's what it means to lie.

[Boab]

Thanks for all the replies on zero hours contracts.

Some interesting points of view and many I agree with.

I think the devil is in the detail...or the wording in this case and Labour and SNP are cute enough not to announce a blanket ban. Suppose we will have to wait and see if they get in to see if they deal with it.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Lord Ashcroft conducted research that says that 71% of 16-18yr olds voted yes. https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/512895230132371456

 

If you'd like to argue with one of the top pollsters in the country, a man who at the time was deputy chairman of the conservative party with zero inclination to massage the figures in favour of yes, then by all mean have at it.

 

To answer your - utterly spurious - question about where the extra no voters came from if more 16-18yr olds voted yes than predicted. Well, and i dont think i'm being overly controversial here, but i'd expect they came from groups that weren't 16-18yrs old. A detailed breakdown and comparison of the predictions and the polls would tell you exactly where, but it's, as i said earlier, utterly spurious and just an attempt from you to try and distort the facts because you're annoyed you don't get to peddle your lie anymore.

The sample size in that group was 14!

 

EDIT: That doesn't mean that the other stats are bollocks either!

Edited April 29, 2015 by Geoff Kilpatrick

[HaymarketJambo]

Jambo 1185 - you should know by now that the SNP (and its supporters are never wrong) so just wait for the comeback to tell you so.

Correct - Mind the Gap.

 

What come back and from what party, Labour, Libdem,Tory?

 

I think not. 

[Thunderstruck]

Lord Ashcroft conducted research that says that 71% of 16-18yr olds voted yes. https://twitter.com/LordAshcroft/status/512895230132371456

 

If you'd like to argue with one of the top pollsters in the country, a man who at the time was deputy chairman of the conservative party with zero inclination to massage the figures in favour of yes, then by all mean have at it.

 

To answer your - utterly spurious - question about where the extra no voters came from if more 16-18yr olds voted yes than predicted. Well, and i dont think i'm being overly controversial here, but i'd expect they came from groups that weren't 16-18yrs old. A detailed breakdown and comparison of the predictions and the polls would tell you exactly where, but it's, as i said earlier, utterly spurious and just an attempt from you to try and distort the facts because you're annoyed you don't get to peddle your lie anymore.

The link you posted does not separately identify 16-17 age group; it lists 16-24.

 

However, further research on his website (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Post-referendum-poll-tables-Sept-2014.pdf) shows that a grand total of 14 individuals between the age of 16 and 18 were included in the survey. That is 0.68% of his sample while 16-18 year olds made up around 2.8% of the population (National Records of Scotland data).

 

I will leave you to decide if you think his work statistically significant.

 

In the words of John Curtice "Polls should be taken, not inhaled."

[Boris]

 

 

Anyway-------------------------

 

59 seats!!!! I was thinking about staying up and have a a wee dram for every SNP seat, but that would be pretty tough.

 

Undecided as to whether Douglas Alexander or Jim  Murphy will be the "Portillo" moment or not.  Actually, add Margaret Curran to that medley of misanthropes.

 

Booked the Friday off and intending on staying up all night.

[The Comedian]

Don't leave Britain, lead it.

 

Arf!

[Boab]

Undecided as to whether Douglas Alexander or Jim  Murphy will be the "Portillo" moment or not.  Actually, add Margaret Curran to that medley of misanthropes.

 

Booked the Friday off and intending on staying up all night.

Think Murphy and Alexander will both survive....Curran on the other hand may sink.

[AndrewB]

 

Booked the Friday off and intending on staying up all night.

 

Me too.  Bloody love election night (even that one in 2001 (?) when very few seats changed hands).

 

"Well Mr Pickles, are you going to miss the ministerial car?"

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Murphy getting emptied will be - I'll be browsing from work looking for that result in particular!

[deesidejambo]

Deeside, You have mentioned a couple of times that your son was voting SNP/Yes as he wanted to cash in on the bedroom tax, How do you do that exactly?

 

If it is too personal feel free to tell me where to go.

No worries.   I think the plan is for him and his mates to rent flats individually once the tax (which isnt actually a tax) is abolished, thereby qualifying for housing benefits with no reduction for the spare rooms.  They will then sub-let the spare rooms for cash anyway, i don't know to who.    I am not familiar with the ins and outs, but these guys are pretty savvy, and there are more like them. so I expect they know how the scam will work. 

 

Either way, that was the reason given for voting Yes, which, as you can tell, irritates me.  I have no problem with people voting Yes for legitimate reasons, but to get going on a scam is not one of them.

[Boris]

No worries.   I think the plan is for him and his mates to rent flats individually once the tax (which isnt actually a tax) is abolished, thereby qualifying for housing benefits with no reduction for the spare rooms.  They will then sub-let the spare rooms for cash anyway, i don't know to who.    I am not familiar with the ins and outs, but these guys are pretty savvy, and there are more like them. so I expect they know how the scam will work. 

 

Either way, that was the reason given for voting Yes, which, as you can tell, irritates me.  I have no problem with people voting Yes for legitimate reasons, but to get going on a scam is not one of them.

 

As a responsible citizen, shouldn't you be informing the authorities of this fraud rather than condoning it?  

[deesidejambo]

It's the best available data, to put worse data in front of it, in full knowledge of this, is lying. That's what it means to lie.

You are talking nonsense.    You base your "truth" on a poll that has been shown to be totally unrepresentative (14 people), and accuse others who use more representative polls as liars.   Are you Nicola in disguise?