Tories bankrolled by Non-Dom Lord

StevieJ

lostinrates wrote: »

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

)

Hey wait a minute, not the only one

Optimist

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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.

Isn't the story here also about Labours hypocrisy ?

Instead of sorting out the Non Dom situation they fudged it That brought in rules that a non dom has to pay a annual charge of £30k and that's it ! I guess they might have upset Lashmir Patel who alone gave £4+ million to labour. I wont bother mentioning the others who gave £6 million between them I'm sure you are aware of them..

Lies and obfuscation indeed !

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

Let us hope they handle the economy with more nouse.

I have the utmost faith in George and Dave :rotfl:

baileysbattlebus

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

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.

It is the bolded sentence that does it for me.

If the Tory party/Lord Ashcroft had come out and said that he was a non dom and not waited until their hands were forced there would have been no story.

A poor call on their part.


From David Cameron 08 Feb 2010

This is why I really believe we are the people to fix broken politics. Because we will ditch the political culture, the political approach that has done so much to break politics and breach people's trust.

Yes we have got the plans and the policies for political reform. Yes we are a new generation that understands and believes in openness, transparency, accountability.

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/02/David_Cameron_Rebuilding_trust_in_politics.aspx

Rochdale_Pioneers

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

A poor call on their part.

A poor call on its own. Put it in the context of a perception of the Tories being a party run by the rich for the rich and its a disaster. Their only line of defence now are to point the finger at the other parties, who have also taken money from people they shouldn't have.

Problem is that Labour aren't running on a platform of change. If Ashcroft-gate makes people think they're all as bad as each other that makes it more likely that people don't vote at all, or vote for a minor party. Which makes it less likely that the Tories succeed in turfing out the 120 or so Labour MPs they need to win.

chucky

nickmason wrote: »

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.

i always thought that you were the drummer from Pink Floyd

Spartacus_Mills

All legal and above board.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8549243.stm

baileysbattlebus

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

All legal and above board.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8549243.stm

Here is the report - parts of it are quite interesting...Tory officials declining to be interviewed...

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/87219/Case-Summary---Bearwood-Corporate-Services.pdf

Optimist

PMQs yesterday was a disgrace with Horrible Harriet getting her knickers in a twist calling Hague, "Foreign Secretary" twice, a bit of Mystic Meg and looking into the future there methinks

She was virtually foaming at the mouth trying to get the name Ashcroft in, although she shot herself in the foot when she mentioned integrity and Hague came back asking about her husband who has been selected to stand for parliament in spite of it being a all women short-list..

To the question "why has manufacturing under Labour declined faster than under any administration, ever?" She replied: "That is typical of the Tories!" "Talking Britain down!"

Michael Foot you are sorely missed !

Wookster

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

They are as venal and self-serving, if not more so, than the Tories. That is not a function of them being worse than the Tories. I think they are equally contemptible. It is a function of them being in power for so long.

A friend of mine thinks that Labour are more corrupt because they are from less wealthy backgrounds than the Tories.