Saturday 16 April 2016


John brought up an interesting point on Munguin's last article, and I thought that it really needed a better airing than at the bottom of a day-old story.

He wrote: You may recall that I mentioned a leaflet from a local Labour candidate which made no mention whatsoever of Labour's proposal of a tax-rise of 1p across all tax bands and I wondered if this was a 'one-off' omission by the local candidate or whether it was wide-spread by all candidates? Perhaps some of your readers might have received similar leaflets? 

I think that it would be an interesting exercise for readers who have received any party literature to share any apparent inaccuracies or glaring omissions in them, so putting up taxes in the case of Labour, or the reduction in public services that will be the inevitable result of reducing taxes in the cases of the Tories... the fact that the Tories have more or less wiped their toxic name off everything and replaced it with Ruth Davidson.

Have the Liberals or UKIP put out something that is economical with the truth... and does anyone care? 

This election, overshadowed as it is by Cameron's ridiculous and undemocratic decision to run an EU referendum campaign concurrently,  is mainly a contest for second place between two partners in the last referendum Better Together or Project Fear coalition, but let's not forget that the Greens and the SNP are sending out leaflets too. Are there errors or omissions in them?

Are  errors down to purely local decisions made by the candidate and his or her agent or are they widespread. In other words is there a "don't talk about the tax rises" type policy from head office, or is candidate Jock McBloggs leaving out things he's not comfortable with? 

(Remember, of course, that in a  doorstep leaflet you can't include the whole party manifesto!)

Oh, and  is anyone getting leaflets from RISE?

So if you get anything through your door (and you are minded to do this), please let us know.
John raised another interesting point. 

When Scottish Labour proposed their tax increase policy across the board, they very reasonably decided that those earning under £20,000 should be given a rebate. 

(The inadequacies of the system currently devolved does not allow for a change in tax free allowance, the bands, nor any kind of rebate. The  questionably legal rebate proposed by SLAB  would have had to be managed by local authorities at considerable cost and a great deal of prying!) 

However, when Labour discovered that the UK tax free allowance was being raised by George Osborne to £11,000, it decided to drop the somewhat clumsy rebate proposals. This means that those earning over £11,000 will not be liable to pay the increase in taxes that Labour wants to introduce.

John,  and now Munguin, wonder why SLAB's website appears to not mention this. 

Any ideas?
Niko highlighted another totally separate but every bit as important point in the same Munguin article. This Guardian piece looks at how the DWP are treating people who are dependent on Tax Credits becasue they are not in full time work (including those who are on zero hour contracts, which sometimes are 40 hours or more on occasions). 

The system is operating in trial areas at the moment (something which seems inherently wrong to me in any case. All areas of "our united kingdom", as Dodgy Dave would have it, are, or should be, subject to the same terms and conditions where matters of UK-wide government policy still holds). However, it is, in the future, to be rolled out across these islands.

It's another way of smacking down the people who aren't lucky enough to have a full time solid job. They, in many cases, are the REAL strivers in the UK. The people who often get up at silly o'clock to do horrible unrewarding jobs in bad conditions, and with no security at all.  Compare them to the fat cat bankers, politicians and those who have fallen into cushie numbers because of their connections.

What a wonderful country this is if you got to a good school at £50,000+ a year, and have a daddy who can get you into Oxford no matter how thick you are, then have a word... and get you a nice little number with one of his friends.

If not, not so great!


  1. Being Edinburgh West, I've been bombarded with LibDem and Tory leaflets, one of the Libdem ones full of semi-libellous nonsense against - well you know who against. Attack the best form of defence, eh LibDems?

    No Labour leaflets whatsoever. SNP coverage wins hands down though.

    1. I think you must ahve been one of the rare people who ever reads LibDem crap. or maybe there are people who get a laugh at it... who knows.

      TBH, when you have admitted that you are going to form the opposition, what is the point of a manifest of promises. You've already accepted that they are worthless.

    2. I used to tactically vote LibDem Tris. Thank fuck I don't have to anymore.

    3. I can understand that Conan. I've voted tactically myself sometimes in the past.

  2. Not had much from any party but then the "Both Votes SNP" sign in my window might be a bit off-putting to the other parties.

    Haven't had SNP stuff either but then I don't bother to deliver to me (one less set of steps to climb).

    Read 'em anyway when they first came.

    1. Yes, that could put people off bjs.

      Although in theory there is an outisde chance that someone can be converted.

      There was a pic on Twitter earlier today of a senior gentleman who was being canvassed. I'd say he was in his 70s and he had already voted. SNP x 2 for the first time in his life.

  3. tris

    Its like some kind of mad torture so the women works an average
    of thirty hours a week and then spend another 30 hours searching
    for a higher paid job............makes a mockery of the living wage
    of 7.20 ph more like 3.10 .
    Kafka couldnt of imagined a more dystopian society why not just
    take her out in the street every day and put her in the stocks
    throw rotten food at her and then give her kids a good hard smack.

    Yes I know Labour started this the Torys just improved on it
    they would say..and so would all the extremist nats


    inside any one party state the ruling oligarchs always win hands down tyranny is just like that

    1. Seriously that should be illegal. In fact it probably is.

      Heaven knows what will happen when we have a British Bill of Rights.

      Extremist nats have tried to alleviate a lot of the sheer inhumanity that has been served up by this foul British government.

      Not easy to find the money for bedroom taxes and but they've done it, although they were obliged, in typically British style, although they were elected, to get permission to do it from an aristocratic memeber of the government who took his lordly time about answering... after all it was only poor people who were being evicted.

    2. Your understanding of a one party state is taken from the unionist press nae doot.

      Thatcher's Britain was a one party state according to that definition, but you never heard it called that now did you?
      The reason why I said the SNP was winning hands down was that the LibDem and Tory leaflets came by post; the SNP ones came by post and activist hand delivery.

      After a terrier nearly took off my middle finger, I started pushing leaflets using a ruler. I've went through three rulers in my time...

    3. conan

      Taz would bit of yer arm.....Umm iffen you had been a Unionist
      canvasser that is

    4. I love the notion that unionists have of a one party state including teh leader elect of Slab.

      A one party state in which there are tv debates with 6 parties SNP, Green, Liberal Dems, Labour, Tory and UKIP? That kind of one party state?

      Ah yeh, that kind of one party state.

      As you say Conan, Under Tahtcher there was a one party state becasue the Labour Party under Foote and Kinnock were jokes. As soon as Labour got themselves a plausible leader in Blair, people started voting for them.

      Then there was a one party state under Blair (and later Brown when the bottom was about to fall out of the whole thing), but that was because first the Tories had Boy Blunder with his Baseball Cap, then they had his grandad with the quiet voice, then they went for belt and braces just to make sure they were completely unelectable, and got in Something of the Night.

      It wasn't coz we COULDN'T vote Tory, it was becasue no one in their right mind would. As soon as the Tories got themselves a plausible leader... people started voting for them again.

      3 rulers? The Queen her dad and her grandad... heavens Conan, I didn't know you were THAT old!!!

      Anyone heard from Jutie?

    5. Taz was on the phone earlier Niko. He says he's coming to the polling station with you to make sure you do it right.

      Tell me... do you have as much fun on unionist websites as you do here? Do you have mates there that have got your back, like you do here?

    6. tris

      Since rejoining the Labour party all they do is ask if
      i would like to make rgular donations.......I aint rich
      like the snp trolls are fecking rolling in dosh
      how do you think conan managed to retire early

      And most unionists take themselves so serious if you take the piss they get quite offended

    7. Erm... I'm not sure. maybe he took advantage of Mr Osborne's pension scheme...

      I'm not rolling in it though, Niko. In fact all the areas that voted SNP seem to be the poorer ones. Dundee, Glasgow.

      I think you may be getting mixed up with rich people like Tony Blair... By the way, has Tony got money in the BVI? I bet he has. Charlie Wales apparently does, and if he does you can bet Lizzie's salted away the crown jewels there too.

      Anyway, it's fortunate you can get a good laugh at this lot of reprobates on here, even if they are more of less separatists!!!

      You only get in because Taz is one of us, you know, and he put in a good bark for you...well, it was more of a growl really.

  4. I received three leaflets today for Galloway and West Dumfries. Labour, Greens and Bev Gauld (Independent).

    The Labour leaflet began by saying that the SNP were bad. It then expanded by saying that the SNP were very bad. A lady from Newton Stewart said she was voting Labour because the SNP were really bad. And another lady from Kirkgunzeon said that Labour were getting both her votes because the SNP were completely bad. It then rounded off by saying that the SNP were really very bad indeed and that Labour were against "the cuts". No mention at all about tax plolicy.

    1. provo

      snpBAD thats enough for me were do i vote against them

    2. He he... I think I'm beginning to get the impression that Labour don't like the SNP for some reason.

      Could it be becasue they are bad, or very bad?

      So no mention of tax there then.

      Maybe, having decided to ditch the rebate they decided to go the whole hog and ditch the tax?

      Or, maybe they reckon that the tax idea was crap and will lose them even more votes?

    3. Niko, just remember to put a cross next to the SNP. Like you used to get at school when you got a sum wrong!

      That meant NiKo bad... this will mean SNP bad.



  5. If there are no giraffes featured in tomorrow's Soppy Sunday I will scream and scream and scream and scream ........