UK Politics III

[MinDonner]

If only he'd spent his ill-gotten gains on something as stupid as a duck island, the press would be all over it. Damn his fiendishly sensible spending!

[mormont]

I'm not sure I can concur that trying to get Tory MPs elected is sensible spending... ;)

[MinDonner]

Hm. You have a point there. :lol:

[Usotsuki]

I'm not sure I can concur that trying to get Tory MPs elected is sensible spending... ;)

Indeed. If one can negotiate a deal with a Labour government where one can be permanently resident in the UK and still maintain tax exile status there doesn't seem to be any point to the Tory party at all. :P

[VarysTheSpider]

The 'privacy' line was always patent BS - if you're giving millions to a political party, and apparently receiving significant political influence in return, your tax status is very much of public interest.

Why?

[mormont]

Why?

Because that makes your money part of the political process, and it is in the interests of democracy that the political process be open. That means telling people where you're getting the money to buy this influence.

Lord Ashcroft's ability to fund the Tories can be seen to stem in part from his avoidance of tax liabilities, legal though that avoidance may be. To be fair, the same could be said of those donors to the Labour and Lib Dem parties who are non-domiciled - but they have been open about their status. We can make judgments about their actions. Until now, we were denied the opportunity to make the same judgment about Ashcroft. Worse, the situation has been obfuscated, apparently deliberately.

[VarysTheSpider]

Because that makes your money part of the political process, and it is in the interests of democracy that the political process be open. That means telling people where you're getting the money to buy this influence.

But that isn't really the same thing is it? It's about tax rate(s) he pays on his earnings, not the source of the earnings themselves.

[mormont]

But that isn't really the same thing is it? It's about tax rate(s) he pays on his earnings, not the source of the earnings themselves.

Money is fungible. If Ashcroft has £4m spare to give the Tories because he has avoided paying tax on his earnings, that is exactly as relevant as how he earned the money in the first place. Particularly if he has not corrected the general impression that he was, in fact, paying this tax.

[VarysTheSpider]

Money is fungible. If Ashcroft has £4m spare to give the Tories because he has avoided paying tax on his earnings, that is exactly as relevant as how he earned the money in the first place. Particularly if he has not corrected the general impression that he was, in fact, paying this tax.

I disagree. It is not "exactly as relevant" because your tax status doesn't allow for a conflict of interest in the same way that the actual source of earnings do. Governments are taking a slice, not giving money back. How much he chooses to spend is a matter for him (and since he's worth over a billion pounds, I have to assume there are more important factors affecting his donation levels than his tax arrangement..), and how much he can spend is a matter for campaign finance law.

I also disagree that he was giving the impression that he was paying UK tax on his foreign earnings. My default opinion is to assume that people pay as little tax as possible, whether earning money abroad or buying a house. And it's not an opinion that's going to be swayed when the person in question keeps quiet about it.

[mormont]

I disagree. It is not "exactly as relevant" because your tax status doesn't allow for a conflict of interest in the same way that the actual source of earnings do.

How not? Is tax status not a matter of public policy? Has Ashcroft not benefitted financially from his tax status? Is it not the case that he has, as a result, money that he would not otherwise have had? And has he not chosen to invest some of it in gaining political influence? And is it not a matter of public interest that where someone invests a very large, in fact unprecedented, sum in a political party, that person should be open about his financial affairs?

I also disagree that he was giving the impression that he was paying UK tax on his foreign earnings.

Disagree away. Given his public statements made in 2000, given the fact that people reasonably interpreted these as meaning that he would become domiciled in the UK, given that he knew very well that people believed this, and given that he chose not to correct this impression for ten years, I think most reasonable people will feel that he was less than straightforward.

Really, it takes some mental and moral gymnastics to come up with a position where what Ashcroft has been doing is A-OK and none of anyone else's business, but if you can do 'em, knock yourself out. I'll just watch. ;)

[VarysTheSpider]

How not?

Because the conflict of interest arises from where the money comes from, not the level at which he's left with after the government takes a cut. He could pay 1% or 50% tax on his earnings, the conflict of interest will still exist if the money comes from the same place.

Is tax status not a matter of public policy? Has Ashcroft not benefitted financially from his tax status? Is it not the case that he has, as a result, money that he would not otherwise have had? And has he not chosen to invest some of it in gaining political influence?

Completely irrelevant to the public interest. All we need to know and be able to change is how much of whatever money he has available he can legally donate to the Tories. not how much he has the financial capacity to give. And that is covered by campaign finance law. There is no need to know about his tax status - you just want to know.

And is it not a matter of public interest that where someone invests a very large, in fact unprecedented, sum in a political party, that person should be open about his financial affairs?

Open about his financial affairs as much as necessary, yes. We don't, for example, need to know how much he spends on milk. (You might disagree, I suppose. After all, if he cuts the milk budget in half that means he has more money to give to the Tories! Oh no! )

What we need to know about his finances is:

Is it legal - covered by HMRC.

The source - haven't checked but I'm sure that would be in the declaration of member's interests.

How much of it he can give to political parties - covered by campaign finance law.

And none of these things are affected by the public knowing about his tax status.

Really, it takes some mental and moral gymnastics to come up with a position where what Ashcroft has been doing is A-OK and none of anyone else's business, but if you can do 'em, knock yourself out. I'll just watch.

Yeah, you're clearly pretty nosy like that.

[mormont]

4.0, the triple spin is not very well executed and the landing was poor.

Here's some interesting reading from that well-known lefty source, the Telegraph, written two years ago.

Every morning, as Tory strategists meet to discuss their battle plan, they ask whether they are missing anything damaging in their own affairs. They can be sure of one thing. When the spotlight does eventually move away from Gordon Brown and towards Mr Cameron it will linger long and hard on Lord Ashcroft.

Privately, senior figures around the Conservative leader have been worried about the party's dependence on the peer for some time. As deputy chairman, Lord Ashcroft is more powerful than ever.

He does not just give donations, he is also responsible for the party's polling and target seat strategy. When the shadow cabinet is briefed on focus group or poll research, it is Lord Ashcroft who presents the results. That puts him in an extraordinarily powerful position.

The party may not be, as one senior Tory put it, a "wholly owned subsidiary of Ashcroft plc" but part of it has certainly been captured by his management team.

The concerns that first circulated when Mr Cameron took over are beginning to resurface. Senior Tories warn that the deputy chairman is running a "party within a party". Some MPs mutter that he could be their leader's Achilles' heel.

The problem is that Lord Ashcroft chooses not to say publicly whether he is resident, and pays tax, in this country. I rang his office yesterday to ask the question again. "It is a private matter," was the response of his spokesman. But it isn't. People who fund political parties should live in this country and contribute to the public services they hope to shape. In the current murky climate I don't see why they should be afraid to make a public declaration of that position as well.

In Lord Ashcroft's case the public interest is irrefutable because he promised, when he was given a peerage seven years ago, that he would "take up permanent residence in the UK". It was in fact a condition of his elevation to the House of Lords.

Although Lord Ashcroft got his peerage before the Commission existed, the moral case is clear. The voters have a right to know whether a man who has a seat in Parliament has fulfilled the agreement he himself made in order to get that seat.

As David Abrahams has discovered, donors to political parties have to be absolutely transparent about their activities. There is no room for grey areas.

[VarysTheSpider]

As happy as I am to be proven wrong by an out-dated entertainment piece cooked up by some hack with an overreliance on anonymous quotes, a crippling fear of paragraphs longer than twelve words and an assertion fetish, since none of those extracts even remotely address why it is in the public interest to know about his tax status, I don't know why you even linked to it.

But David Abrahams! Hahaha. I'd almost forgotten about him. Ashcroft is the second coming of Christ compared to that scumbag.

[mormont]

You wouldn't, for example, say that the bit that says 'the public interest is irrefutable' and goes on to explain why, might perhaps 'remotely address' the issue of public interest?

Maybe you missed that bit in your rush to label a piece in the political comment section, written by an experienced political journalist, 'an entertainment piece'. A poor effort at distraction, if that's what it was supposed to be. ;)

But the article wasn't supposed to be a comprehensive argument about why Lord Ashcroft's tax status is in the public interest. If that's what you want, you can take your pick of scores, if not hundreds, of articles written by respected political commentators, journalists and experts over the last decade. Or you could simply acknowledge the findings of the information commissioner (a Labour placeman, no doubt :rolleyes:) whose ruling that the matter most definitely was in the public interest was what prompted Ashcroft to own up. I just thought the article was interesting reading. :)

[Maltaran]

RIP Michael Foot

[Usotsuki]

Marginally interesting.

Labour and the Conservatives are neck and neck in the marginal seats that will determine the outcome of the general election, raising doubts over David Cameron’s ability to win a clear overall majority, according to a special poll for The Times.

The survey was carried out by Populus in 100 key seats currently held by Labour and targeted by the Conservatives. Although more voters are switching to the Tories in these areas than in the country as a whole, the results suggest that the shift is well below the hopes and expectations of Mr Cameron’s strategists.

It's a little sexed-up because the constituencies polled did not include the Tories' first fifty target seats still one does wonder quite how effective the Ashcroft machine has been.

Vote Liberal Democrat. Probably not evil.

[Hereward]

I think a significant number of people are of the opinion that none of the party leaders is imaginable as a credible and/or competent prime minister. Even if the Tories were lead by someone credible (I'm looking at you Ken Clarke), I still wouldn't want their MPs or, even worse, their membership, anywhere near power.

Still, on balance, I'll go with your sig.*

*Though I'll still forget on Election Night and automatically jump up and cheer when the Tories win a seat, even from the LibDems. Conditioning is a powerful thing.

[Usotsuki]

Though I'll still forget on Election Night and automatically jump up and cheer when the Tories win a seat, even from the LibDems. Conditioning is a powerful thing.

Remember to do a few warm up exercises first, even on the most moderate predictions you could be leaping up every few minutes for a couple of hours. Not even celebrating the end of Jacqui Smith's career can make a dislocated hip a pleasurable experience, probably.

Vote Liberal Democrat. Our leader has pores.

[Blue Roses]

After Mrs Brown has done such sterling work convincing us Mr B is really warm & fluffy on the inside ; Mr B crying over dead babies and telling us of his love for bananas I am somewhat amazed he has fallen into the tender loving embrace of Charlie Whelan again. Mind you it worked with the Prince of Darkness. However the mind does boggle :huh:

[Usotsuki]

You cannot buy our politicians for we are a people of unmatched principle fortunately you can rent them by the hour.

Three former ministers have been suspended from the Parliamentary Labour Party "for bringing it into disrepute".

Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon are under investigation over their apparent willingness to help a lobbying firm in return for cash.

I do like Jack Talleyrand Straw's attitude though: "It appears that former cabinet ministers are putting making money ahead of meeting their constituents... There's anger... and incredulity about their stupidity... getting suckered by a sting like this."

On a tangent, do not forge our passports for we shall be slightly miffed and revisit the vexed issue of labelling requirements for soft fruit.

Vote Liberal Democrat. Poised on the fence.