Tories bankrolled by Non-Dom Lord

cottonbelle

StevieJ wrote: »

From the Sunday Sun, and their vote Tory campaign

Ok so how about a Labour paper then if you don't want to read that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/02/non-doms-labour-funding-election

As they say they have been waiting for 10 years to find out about Lord Ashcroft, and the horror of his status, if they were that incensed about what was going on about funding of the Conservatives or any parties why has it taken them so long to do something about it and then put it off until after they get the full benefit from their own non doms!

As I said before, I don't agree with any side doing this, but balance and fairness should be what proper debate is all about, and the Labour party have been sadly lacking today.

nollag2006

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8542744.stm

I'm a little surprised this has not been posted before. So for the sake of balance here it is.

The more I learn about Cameron's cronies, the less I trust him.

How Cameron can squander a massive lead over such an inept regime is truly flabbergasting.

I am not a party political supporter one way or another, and have voted Tory in the past, but don't think I will this time.

Between non-doms, first class travel snobbery, and moat cleaning expense fraud, I think the Tory elite have lost complete touch with the reality that most British people face.

They don't deserve to govern.

Graham_Devon

nollag2006 wrote: »

The more I learn about Cameron's cronies, the less I trust him.

How Cameron can squander a massive lead over such an inept regime is truly flabbergasting.

I am not a party political supporter one way or another, and have voted Tory in the past, but don't think I will this time.

Between non-doms, first class travel snobbery, and moat cleaning expense fraud, I think the Tory elite have lost complete touch with the reality that most British people face.

They don't deserve to govern.

Well labour and conservatives are pretty much on par here.

Labour have their fair share too. The difference being the labour version won't even tell us his real status, just flatly denies. Labour also had more actual court cases for the expenses thing. The tories were mainly sickeningly stupid claims, labours more calculated to make money.

Dunno about the first class snobbery, heard a comment that could have been innocent in all honesty. Think the MP said it's a different type of people? I can understand what he meant, just a poor choice of words.

Mr.Brown_4

Ashcroft, whatever. I'm still coping with Lord, LORD Mandelson being around. I thought Lords became crooks, not the other way around.

Want more?

What about the Cash for Peerages - Lord Levy was it?

The Hutton report.

Formula One smoking ban.

tbh the list of dodgy stuff, on both sides, goes so long it's hardly worth noting. It would be nice to get the election underway - with a simple slogan "Tory cuts v Labour taxes". Let's hold it tomorrow and get the thing done with.

baileysbattlebus

cottonbelle wrote: »

Ok so how about a Labour paper then if you don't want to read that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/02/non-doms-labour-funding-election

As they say they have been waiting for 10 years to find out about Lord Ashcroft, and the horror of his status, if they were that incensed about what was going on about funding of the Conservatives or any parties why has it taken them so long to do something about it and then put it off until after they get the full benefit from their own non doms!

As I said before, I don't agree with any side doing this, but balance and fairness should be what proper debate is all about, and the Labour party have been sadly lacking today.

The declaration he signed said he would become a UK tax resident - it was submitted to the Cabinet Office where it remained a secret until the Cabinet Office said the declaration would be released under the Freedom of Information act. It was requested by a labour MP on Feb 1st - and they have to release the information in 35 days.

There is a possibility that hardly anyone knew of his status and what he had promised to William Hague.

Lord Ashcroft was in a uique position in 2000 - he had already been turned down by the tories for a peerage because of his tax status. So he gets one under labour and promises William Hague he will become a tax resident and doesn't - nothing illegal there of course. Just not honest or transparent. Which recently Call Me Dave has been telling us they are - honest and transparent. I'll clean up politics - my eye.

If there is any hypocrisy here it is from tory party - telling us one thing - how honest they are, and hiding this until they were given no choice in the matter.

One of labour non doms has already said he will give up his peerage rather than his tax status. Fair enough.

The labour non doms are known to be non doms - no one has ever said any other. But the tory party have - they have constantly evaded answering the question.

None of labour non doms are deputy chairman of the labour party - potentially helping to shape policy - they don't have a suite of offices at labour headquarters.

It is his company (bearwood) that he donates through that is under investigation - a business has to be registered in the UK to donate - Chris Huhne is pushing for the completion of the investigation before the election - if it is deemed illegal the tories may have to pay all the donated money back.

A labour non dom also donates through a company but the company is registered in the UK - no questions to answer.

It's not the fact he's a non dom (who cares really), it's the deceit and lies that have gone for years about it.

He has also said he will change his tax status - if the tories win the election -

chewmylegoff

i don't really understand why if labour care so much about the non-dom thing they didn't just shut the non-dom loophole and introduce a US like tax system requiring UK citizens to pay UK tax on their worldwide income.

nickmason

"Bankrolled": So Ashcroft appears to have given approx 5% of Tory money, while 60% of Labour money comes from Unions, and 3/4 of the remainder - ie 30% - comes from 3 donors. Labour seems a whole lot more dependent on dubious major donors.

"Non-Dom": Of those 3 donors, 2 are non-doms - and there are plenty more. Labour seems a whole lot more dependent on non-doms.

"Lord": While Ashcroft is a member of House of Lords, Labour's Lord Paul is a Privy Councillor - not only does this grant him the style "Right Honourable", but also membership of a relatively exclusive and surprisingly influential body - chaired by that paragon of virtue Lord Mandelson.

A couple of other observations:
1) It was the GOVERNMENT who released the obligations on Lord Ashcroft - presumably because they didn't want the contrast drawn against their considerably more essential non-dom donors.
2) Chris Huhne and the LDs are far from pure on this; he has been bankrolled by a non-dom; and the LD party's major donor has been locked up for fraud.
3) This idea that Ashcroft is "worse" than the other donors because he is involved in the target-seats campaign is bonkers, a complete red herring, or an excuse to single him out. Any party that isn't focusing its money on its key seats shouldn't be trusted with a parish council; and if someone of his skill volunteers to help a campaign then a party would be foolish not to accept help; Labour takes exactly the same from its trade union or public sector friendly employees.
4) Frankly, as someone who gives a huge amount of time and a fair amount of money to the country and politics, I'd rather we received money from someone who has an outstanding record of donating to charity; who has - long before he became involved in politics - set up such initiatives as Crimestoppers; who has said that - assuming Cameron changes the law to force members of the Lords to domocile for tax purposes - he will take that tax hit, rather than run away like Lord Paul has said he will.

You see, Ashcroft clearly loves this country and is trying to help it. The buying of influence accusation sits far, far better with Labour.

viv0147

Well plenty of varied opinions, but it doesn't alter the fact the Tory lead is being whittled away, and this latest revelation will do even more damage.

baileysbattlebus

nickmason wrote: »

"Bankrolled": So Ashcroft appears to have given approx 5% of Tory money, while 60% of Labour money comes from Unions, and 3/4 of the remainder - ie 30% - comes from 3 donors. Labour seems a whole lot more dependent on dubious major donors.

"Non-Dom": Of those 3 donors, 2 are non-doms - and there are plenty more. Labour seems a whole lot more dependent on non-doms.

"Lord": While Ashcroft is a member of House of Lords, Labour's Lord Paul is a Privy Councillor - not only does this grant him the style "Right Honourable", but also membership of a relatively exclusive and surprisingly influential body - chaired by that paragon of virtue Lord Mandelson.

A couple of other observations:
1) It was the GOVERNMENT who released the obligations on Lord Ashcroft - presumably because they didn't want the contrast drawn against their considerably more essential non-dom donors.
2) Chris Huhne and the LDs are far from pure on this; he has been bankrolled by a non-dom; and the LD party's major donor has been locked up for fraud.
3) This idea that Ashcroft is "worse" than the other donors because he is involved in the target-seats campaign is bonkers, a complete red herring, or an excuse to single him out. Any party that isn't focusing its money on its key seats shouldn't be trusted with a parish council; and if someone of his skill volunteers to help a campaign then a party would be foolish not to accept help; Labour takes exactly the same from its trade union or public sector friendly employees.
4) Frankly, as someone who gives a huge amount of time and a fair amount of money to the country and politics, I'd rather we received money from someone who has an outstanding record of donating to charity; who has - long before he became involved in politics - set up such initiatives as Crimestoppers; who has said that - assuming Cameron changes the law to force members of the Lords to domocile for tax purposes - he will take that tax hit, rather than run away like Lord Paul has said he will.

You see, Ashcroft clearly loves this country and is trying to help it. The buying of influence accusation sits far, far better with Labour.

All I can say is it's not the non dom status of Lord Ashcroft or anyone else - though the other parties haven't lied about theirs.

It is the lies and the fact that senior party members were complicit in them.

You can defend it all you like - point out the fact the other parties have non dom donors - which is no secret. The fact is they lied and would have continued to lie.

I can remember the Newnight programme where Lord Young said Lord Ashcroft was a non dom - something that was refuted by the party the next day - saying he had made a mistake.

The only reason it has become public knowledge is the fact that they had no choice - the Cabinet Office were about to release some of the papers.

That is what should be bothering people..

I think we all know most politicians are liars - this just brings it home a bit more.

At least Lord Paul is being honest when he said he would rather give up his peerage than his non dom status.

blueboy43

nickmason wrote: »

"Bankrolled": So Ashcroft appears to have given approx 5% of Tory money, while 60% of Labour money comes from Unions, and 3/4 of the remainder - ie 30% - comes from 3 donors. Labour seems a whole lot more dependent on dubious major donors.

.

You can tell there is an election, when another Tory activist pops up, to tells us all how this story is more about Labour than the Conservatives !

He's Deputy Chairman of the Tory party !!!!!! and is more involved in the detailed operational part of the general election campaign than George Osbourne who is supposed to be running it. He is full entitled to structure his tax affairs anyway he wants, but there are real doubts about the legitamacy of both his personal donations and those by Bearwoor.

The whole saga shows a desparate lack of judgement by both Cameron and sadly also William Hague.

Cameron has been evasive about this for several years, William Hague either colluded with a statement that was designed to obfuscate or he was duped 10 years ago.

The worry about Cameron is that this is symptomatic of him behaving like a company PR man throwing journalists off the scent rather than leading.

The lowlight was seeing the normally decent Michael Gove trying to defend the situation and imply the BBC was biased on Newsnight yesterday. It was cringeworthy.