Pro-EU leaflets paid for by the taxpayer are a political manipulation

Welcome the new style of democracy, where taxpayers’ money is spent on the EU In campaign at 34p per household. Campaign leafleting to win is a numbers game; the more you ‘hammer’ the point home the more chance of gaining success.

The new leaflet that we are all due to receive, printed under the banner of being from our Government, will mislead some people that there is all-party support to remain in the EU and will play on their insecurities to vote for such. This is political manipulation which contradicts our British sense of fair play, decency and consideration, and is unacceptable.

The Conservatives know that the public and MPs are too apathetic to react to the outrageous spending of taxpayers’ money and, with a docile nation that seems to have lost its confrontational strength, it seems that we will remain in the EU, regardless.

The Conservatives overspent on expenses for three by-elections which were pivotal to their General Election win last year. Our new leaner, keener and meaner government is now showing a new form of the old Conservative sleaze.

Rodger G Deyn
Manchester

I'm strongly in favour of staying in the EU but, as a taxpayer, I object to the government using my money for campaigning. Moreover, I fear that it could be counter-productive because many people who are irritated by the leaflet may be turned against the cause it attempts to promote. Here is yet another example of this government's inability to understand ordinary people.

Susan Alexander
Frampton Cotterell, South Gloucestershire

It is funny that the government now resorts to using our tax money to send us leaflets telling us to vote to remain in the EU. This desperate action, coupled with the false claims the leaflet makes, proves that there is nothing good anyone can actually say about the EU.

Emily Stevens
Brighton

I wish to remain in the EU, but the publication of this brochure is ill considered. Those who are undecided want either opposing views set out side by side or an impartial view on each issue. No-one wants opinions laid out as facts, with scant justification, or glossy pictures. Both are patronizing to the public. What incompetence.

Patrick Cosgrove
Bucknell, Shropshire

Now that the Government has published a document detailing the case for remaining in the EU, it must produce a similar document detailing the case for exiting the EU. This is most important, so that the public can make an informed decision.

Timothy Harris
Bridgnorth

To crack down on tax havens, says Dominic Grieve, would ruin livelihoods. I suppose we should not crack down on illegal gambling or tax avoidance as it would ruin the livelihood of the illegal dodgers? Or illegal theft or robbery or those who reset stolen goods, as that too would ruin someone's livelihood along the illegal chain?

I have heard limp excuses in the past equivocating the absurd, but that statement by Grieve must rank as the most preposterous. Ian Cameron's fund prospectus, according to reports, advertised that no UK tax would be paid. I make no further comment other than to ask if this is an incitement or inducement to dodge tax.

John Edgar
Blackford

What an extraordinary conclusion John Rentoul arrives at in his article on transparency, or not, of public figures on their tax returns. He suggests that "normal" people would be deterred from public service if they ran the vexatious risk of having to come clean about their tax affairs. Why don’t we all shut up shop and move to the Virgin Islands?

Donald Zec
Address supplied

David Cameron may claim not to benefit from his father’s offshore fund. I wonder how many parents may also have been able to provide the best education money can buy given the same cosy tax arrangements?

Michael Blake
Beverley, East Yorkshire

How interesting to see that the BBC website devotes a long piece to scrutiny of any suspicious links to President Putin that might be revealed in the Panama Papers, while contenting itself with merely reporting Downing Street's denial that David Cameron derived any benefit from Cameron Senior's equally murky financial jiggery pokery in the Caribbean. But, of course, the BBC - as it never ceases reminding us ad nauseum - is entirely independent and is not in the least reliant on the government's goodwill when it comes to raking in its licence fee. Is it?

Adrian Marlowe
Netherlands

Awarding Lucca, the army dog, the canine equivalent of a Victoria Cross is anthropomorphic romanticism. The animal was not protecting allied troops, as Nicola Sheerin suggests, but simply doing what men had trained it to do, for their exclusive benefit.

The poor beast seems to have lost a leg: I’d say that’s an example of extreme cruelty to animals. People who have made fighting their chosen way of making a living should be taking their own risks, instead of endangering innocent animals.

Robert Dow
Tranent