Tories bankrolled by Non-Dom Lord

Spartacus_Mills

blueboy43 wrote: »

You just don't get it do you.

The best line the Tories can come up with is that "we are just as bad as Labour". Its pathetic, and in the end will result in people turning to more extreme parties like the BNP.

I've a decent sized spread bet having bought the total number of Tory seats at 332 so your constant carping of "Labour frothers" is laughable.

It appears from this mornings papers that William Hague was either duped or turned a blind eye to this.

What the Tories should have realised on this issue is that they cannot win. The Times for example will be solidly behind the Tories but having past been sued by Ashcroft will not let this issue lie. He also seems, despite his very generous donations to Crimestoppers & the Imperial War Museum, to be utterly loathed by many journalists, Labour MPs and a sprinkling of Tory MP's.

Maybe you should look in the mirror when you start ranting about "frothers".
After all, it is you who is material from Guido Fawkes site.

I do get it, thank you. We just disagree.

I see the Labour position as hypocritical (and the Lib Dem one for that matter) and the Tories are right to highlight it. When Labour claim Ashcroft is funding the marginal seats strategy yet his donations to it are a small percentage of the sum involved they are right to challenge it.

You don't like their position, good for you. I am ambivalent towards it.

What makes you think I used the term Labour frothers to apply to you ? Is there an element of "If the cap fits" I do think people like you are hypocritical in trying to hold the Tories to a higher standard than the other parties. Maybe you are just used to Labour being corrupt, venal and self-serving and are not used to it with the Tories

I do not spread bet as I do not fully understand its complexities and risks but I am currently backing Labour to hold seats in the 100-200 range. I see them losing 80-100 to the Tories/Lib Dems.

That Ashcroft is loathed by people is neither here nor there. The current Prime Minister would not win any popularity polls with Labour MP's.

I am still planning to vote Lib Dem personally. I am not a Tory and have never voted Tory at a GE.

Sir_Humphrey

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

I am still planning to vote Lib Dem personally. I am not a Tory and have never voted Tory at a GE.

I was wondering why you had Clement Freud as your avatar.

I also wonder why you are so keen to defend the Tories. I can't see anyone but some activists for one of the main three parties defending any of these things.

Spartacus_Mills

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I was wondering why you had Clement Freud as your avatar.

I also wonder why you are so keen to defend the Tories. I can't see anyone but some activists for one of the main three parties defending any of these things.

I am trying to put some balance to the discussion as the Tories are getting alot of criticism for what the other parties also do. It is not a case of Tories bad Labour good as some would make out more a plague on all of their houses.

I am not defending the Tories as such, I have said in a post in this forum they handled it badly. They did. Labour has a much slicker operation in terms of media management than the Tories. The Tories let it run and run when they could have resolved it.

StevieJ

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I was wondering why you had Clement Freud as your avatar.

I also wonder why you are so keen to defend the Tories. I can't see anyone but some activists for one of the main three parties defending any of these things.

I have noticed a few 'ex Labour voters' avidly defending the Tories on here, mmmm.

StevieJ

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

I am not defending the Tories as such, I have said in a post in this forum they handled it badly. They did. Labour has a much slicker operation in terms of media management than the Tories. The Tories let it run and run when they could have resolved it.

Let us hope they handle the economy with more nouse.

whathavewedone

I agree with Spartacus that the tories should have lanced this boil some time ago.

However it is hypocritical of Labour and the Libdems to jump out of their prams about it.

I read on Nick Robinson's blog that the enquiry Mandleson requested will not go ahead because the relevant paperwork is and always has been at the Cabinet.

Guessing this means Labour knew about his tax status all along then? I don't suppose the enquiry against Lord Paul will go ahead either.

They are all as bad as each other when it comes to this kind of thing which is why Labour, by trying to get the maximum mileage out of this story, may end up looking worse than the tories if they don't drop it soon.

nickmason

Butterfly_Brain wrote: »

If they don't pay tax here they shouldn't have the right to sit in parliament

This is the crazy paradox of it. I agree with that statement (or rather "If they choose to pay tax elsewhere rather than here, they shouldn't have the right to sit in parliament" - I'd rather not exclude those without jobs from representative office ).

So David Cameron has argued precisely that. He has said he will change the law.

To change the law you need to win the election. Elections need money.
So do you refuse what is currently perfectly legal money on a principle that others don't abide by?

Yes - good moral position, but arguably cutting off your nose to spite your face - and reducing the chance to bring the principle into law.
No - accusations of hypocrisy, but greater chance of gaining the power that would allow action on the many other issues that any political party probably feels it has a duty to address. Remember that this is not the ONLY issue at stake.

Rochdale_Pioneers

I go back to the point I made a few pages back - the best defence the Tories have managed to come up with is "look at Lord Paul". Regardless of whether Lord Paul has contributed as much money as Ashcroft or is as involved in policy as Ashcroft, we're now into a pointless contest of "whose non-dom is worst"

Like I said, how does this support "Vote for Change". What change?

As for the charges against me, I am on record as saying I want all parties funded by the state. No non-doms, no unions, no sugar-daddies with agendas. Is Paul as bad as Ashcroft in principle? Absolutely.

But the story here isn't Ashcroft the non-dom shock. We all pretty much knew that. Its Ashcroft the non-dom after 10 years of lies and obsfucation by the Tory party to hide that fact. It looks appalling and those of you supporting the blue team know it.

nickmason

lostinrates wrote: »

Its crazy if we would prefer our politicians to be deceitful!

IMO nickmason has the moral high ground over all of us posting in his own name.

I wish I were so honest. Maybe I will be one day.

Edit to add: I am not under nickmason's pay or influence and would say the same of anyone doing the same for any other party too.

(Hi Nick...:))

Thanks LIR.

For those who don't remember, there was a kerfuffle over this. I occasionally pop back and have a read of what's going on, and very occasionally post. As our esteemed Sir Humphrey has suggested, I could, maybe should, have come back anonymously.

It's probably a stubborn, ego thing, but something in me says that that would be cowardly - not that those who do post anonymously are cowards - that I should not run for shelter, because I am elected and am already, in that sense, public property. Frankly I will say this in public, and so see no reason why I shouldn't let it be attributed to me. On the other hand, and the reason I left, was that there was a clear imbalance between me and Sir Humphrey, who knows me of old, and insisted on playing the man, not the ball.

So it's only on a few matters that I make the case here, rather than in a more balanced, personal, environment; a few matters that agitate me so much that I think "to hell" with being sensible.

This is one. And I have to say I've been relieved to see so much sense written by many people - including non-Tories, Spartacus Mills and Rochdale Pioneers - who approach this with a balanced view. I just wish that those desparate to score points would get their own houses in order first, and would have the decency not to take advantage of politics being a negative-sum game.

apt

That was a fine hat-trick that William Hague racked-up - Archer as Conservative candidate for London Mayor, Conrad Black and Michael Ashcroft as Tory peers. If he gets to be foreign secretary he better show more political judgement than that.