Tories: When in doubt kick the poor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/10/chris-grayling-defends-plan-credit-rating-agencies-benefits

The above article in the Guardian features a Conservative party election poster from the UK elections this year. These things were pasted up all over.

In fact however people who refuse work ALREADY would get their benefits removed under existing legislation. So why on earth launch such a misleading and factually inaccurate poster?

Who would realistically want to live on the abysmally low income of the benefits system if they could find a job easily? The Conservatives and their right wing allies at the Daily Mail deliberately dig up individuals who exploit the system to tar all those who require to claim benefits.

This is part of the Tory strategy to blame the unemployed for being unemployed during a worldwide recession. When in doubt kick the poor. That's why the Tories were rejected in Scotland, shame on those who voted them in elsewhere.

Of course anyone who is fraudulently claiming benefits should have them removed but the Conservative party should never have ran the misleading advert shown above and they should in fact have some compassion for those whose life has been ruined by the train wreck of the British economy.

A large amount of the unemployed get benefits for six months only.

Those who get benefits for a more prolonged period only get them because they have been means tested ie they are required. I believe those who receive benefits should get them in a civilised society.

Chase your tax dodging pals Cameron and then I might believe you had any real interest in fairness.

Lib Dems need to speak to Tories about Fiscal Autonomy

Scotsman: Lib Dems seek SNP deal

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Lib-Dems-seek-SNP-deal.6329080.jp

Tavish fears that his new coalition Government will prove as popular as poison with Scots voters so he obviously now wants to re-position himself and his party.

If the unionists set up a "no independence" group ie Calman then it cannot by definition be big enough for the SNP. It was in actual fact an attempt to undermine the SNP national conversation which was designed specifically to discuss all options for Scotland including fiscal autonomy (FA) and independence.

FA has been a logical SNP demand for years as a stepping stone to independence. Calman wanted to take powers back from Scots and provide some unusable powers in exchange (along with a few irrelevant ones).

The Liberal Democrats signed up for this deal with the devil. Scotland was never first in their priorities.

If more powers are on offer then we should take them but we should not give any back nor should we accept anything which ultimately weakens our position within the current set up.

If Tavish wants Fiscal Autonomy then the people he needs to convince are his new Tory pals. The SNP already have a lot more ambition for Scotland than he does or ever will.

Scotsman: Alastair Campbell's diaries: Cardinal attacked Blair 'in Papal bid'

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Alastair-Campbell39s-diaries-Cardinal-attacked.6329107.jp

Mr Campbell shows himself to be a bit of a plonker here. Not everyone is as obsessed with political power as him! Cardinal Winning would have said these things because he had principles and believed in them, something quite foreign to Labour. New Labour was ultimately a failure because it had no principles at heart and they therefore wasted their years in office.

If Salmond is 'irrelevant' then so is Scotland

British Conservative leader David Cameron's remarks again show his party's irrelevance to Scotland. If Alex Salmond and by extension the SNP are "irrelevant" to a British general election then this shows up the fact that Scotland does not count within the current setup.

The SNP are currently Scotland's most popular party. They won the last Scottish election and the last Euro elections with the largest share of the popular vote. The Tories on the other hand have one MP in Scotland and might soon have zero. The SNP however could realistically under FPTP increase their numbers to 20-30 seats.

That makes the SNP a huge player in Scotland. If David Cameron continues to push this line then what he is actually saying is that no party in Scotland counts and that whatever way we vote does not matter in a UK election.

If that is so then the only logical option for Scots is independence, because otherwise he is right and we don't count at all within the UK setup where we are outvoted 10-1.

If the BBC go ahead with a debate and show it in Scotland without the SNP's participation then they will be wide open to legal action. It may be David Cameron's opinion that the SNP don't count but in reality it is his party that is the irrelevance to all Scots.

In Scotland this election is between Labour and the SNP. Who wins will have relevance to whether we move forward to independence or have a future of right wing rule. Cameron knows he is not popular up here and he also knows he has no hope of winning any election but he has no right to decide the scottish people's vote in advance of te actual election, nor has he any right to declare that the SNP are irrelevant when they have an excellent chance of winning the elections in Scotland!

--------

David Cameron has branded the Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond "an irrelevance" in the upcoming general election. His comments came after Mr Salmond predicted England would be "dancing to a Scottish tune" if the election delivers a hung Parliament with SNP MPs holding the balance of power.

But Mr Cameron insisted the only options for voters casting their ballot in any part of the UK was between continued Labour rule and a switch to Conservative government.