I was against including them in the referendum for the sleazy and political reasoning behind that decision, but then against most things about the YEs campaign were sleazy and dreadful, matching Salmond's personality to a T, I'd say.

The only opinion poll I saw which showed how 16- and 17-year-olds intended to vote showed them to be firmly against independence (or freedom if you are Silas).

The only opinion poll I saw which showed how 16- and 17-year-olds intended to vote showed them to be firmly against independence (or freedom if you are Silas).

There was the Ashcroft demographic analysis which got reported a lot which showed a 72:28 split for 16/17 year olds in favour of independence. Unfortunately, most people reporting it neglected to mention that it was based on the responses of 14 16-17 year olds.

Oops, I did not see that it was only 14!

 

n not equal to or greater than 30 makes it statistically meaningless of course (and me quite sad that it was even reported). Of course that doesn't change the fact that Alex Salmond most likely expected that age group would be more likely to vote yes.

Oops, I did not see that it was only 14!

 

n not equal to or greater than 30 makes it statistically meaningless of course (and me quite sad that it was even reported). Of course that doesn't change the fact that Alex Salmond most likely expected that age group would be more likely to vote yes.

n ≤ 50 isn't it?

 

And yeah, it makes me boil. Particularly as you had those vile 'we are the 45%' lot going on about how the elderly had robbed the kids of their future etc. on the basis of one shoddy report.

They could actually work out exactly who voted for what. I'd be really interested in seeing the actual vote breakdown between ages.

 

City of Glasgow Council today revealed that in all 8 Glasgow Holyrood constituencies the Yes vote won.

They could actually work out exactly who voted for what. I'd be really interested in seeing the actual vote breakdown between ages.

 

City of Glasgow Council today revealed that in all 8 Glasgow Holyrood constituencies the Yes vote won.

 

Irrelevant.

They could actually work out exactly who voted for what. I'd be really interested in seeing the actual vote breakdown between ages.

Not quite. It is a secret ballot!

Is it shit. Your number gets written down next to the ballot paper you're given. How else do you think they found the 10 fraudulent votes in Glasgow so easily and quickly? They looked out for specific numbers.

 

 

Would not be too difficult to work backwards from those numbers to see who voted Yes and who voted No.

Good to see other parties adopting Lib-dem policies :lol:

Well the Lib Dems have stopped doing it, so someone's got to.

Is it shit. Your number gets written down next to the ballot paper you're given. How else do you think they found the 10 fraudulent votes in Glasgow so easily and quickly? They looked out for specific numbers.

Would not be too difficult to work backwards from those numbers to see who voted Yes and who voted No.

Yeah, it's okay to use polling numbers to trace lost or fraudulent votes. It's the absolute HEIGHT of illegality (and electoral immorality) to try and breach the secret ballot! There's a reason we use the British Election Study for these things.

Yeah, it's okay to use polling numbers to trace lost or fraudulent votes. It's the absolute HEIGHT of illegality (and electoral immorality) to try and breach the secret ballot! There's a reason we use the British Election Study for these things.

 

It's also ageist. Assuming people change their voting habits due to being older or younger. The main reason for changing parties is feeling economically disadvantaged or unrepresented, and that appears to match up with the results.

Well the Lib Dems have stopped doing it, so someone's got to.

 

Yes, maybe they should rebrand themselves as New Libdem and adopt Tory policies. Oh, hang on, that's been done already...

Yes, maybe they should rebrand themselves as New Libdem and adopt Tory policies. Oh, hang on, that's been done already...

 

Yes. It's pretty much what the Liberal Democrats have been doing for the past 4 1/2 years, and why they are polling at lows of just 7% currently.

I was against including them in the referendum for the sleazy and political reasoning behind that decision, but then against most things about the YEs campaign were sleazy and dreadful, matching Salmond's personality to a T, I'd say.

 

 

You seem to only see one side of view here.

 

Yes Alex Salmond wanted 16/17 year olds added to the poll (because he thought they would be more likely to vote yes) but this was a collective agreement called "The Edinburgh Agreement" where Cameron & Salmond made an agreement on the question and nature of the ref so they came to an agreement that the voting age would be lowered because cameron refused to have devo max as an option to kill the independence option stone dead if the vote was No. As we have seen he agreed to devo max a week before the poll out of sheer panic. Basically politically once again cameron played a blinder politically and showed him to be a poor politican.

Edited September 25, 201410 yr by steve201

Yes. It's pretty much what the Liberal Democrats have been doing for the past 4 1/2 years, and why they are polling at lows of just 7% currently.

 

Except that they aren't adopting Tory policies, they have been accepting some through necessity in a joint Tory government. I expect them to do the same when/if Labour don't get that full majority either, (and especially if UKIP dig into both Labour and Tory seats). Then they can get criticised for giving up policy manifestos in favour of some of the Labour manifesto. Happily, reducing the voting age to 16 won't be a sticking ground, it seems.

 

 

I expect a hung parliament in 2015, but I really don't think the Liberal Democrats will be in power again - how can they be with such low voter support?

 

Minority government will be favoured by Labour (less so by Tories), and I expect there is even the possibility of a small majority for Labour should UKIP decimate the Tories support.

well you may be right about the Lib dem support being so low as to be irrelevant, but then again a minority government could be much worse, as they would get nothing difficult through, the only changes would be cross-party MOR ones, or else in effect even if not in government relying on LibDem policies not being a million miles away from Labour's and assuming they won't vote against crucial ones. LibDems of course, not really being a position to not stick to the manifesto once not in government to avoid any further sell-out claims.

well you may be right about the Lib dem support being so low as to be irrelevant, but then again a minority government could be much worse, as they would get nothing difficult through, the only changes would be cross-party MOR ones, or else in effect even if not in government relying on LibDem policies not being a million miles away from Labour's and assuming they won't vote against crucial ones. LibDems of course, not really being a position to not stick to the manifesto once not in government to avoid any further sell-out claims.

That's on the assumption that Labour would want to introduce policy too radically lefty for the Greens, the SNP or Plaid. There's quite a lot of things which the party isn't pushing now for fear of losing suburban target seats under the knowledge that even if we fall short of a majority the nationalists will vote along social democratic principles even without a full coalition.

The Lib Dems will be asked at the next election which coalition policies they would be happy to reverse. They have already indicated that they would support abolition of secret courts, the bedroom tax and elected PCCs which is an encouraging start. At least two of those three should make a deal with Labour easier to negotiate.

 

Of course the Tories should be asked the same questions but I doubt they will be. Therefore, they won't be asked whether they will, for example, continue the pupil premium.