The Dirty Digger Nobbles the Debate (With Help From a Noble Lord)

The blogs are sceaming with advice for the participants in tonight's debate. Do this Gordon, don't mention that. Dave should push on this subject, raise this matter..etc.  etc. etc.

But I'm very much afraid that Cameron's best tactic is probably to do nothing. Given his position and the support he has in terms of a compliant press and cash to spend, he really doesn't have to impress, just make no big mistakes that the press simply cannot ignore, smirk a few lines and go home. The Murdoch Empire will do the rest for the debates (Dave Done Great!) and Ashcroft's cash willl deliver in the marginals.

So Cameron and his supporters can relax. The foreign owned press and the non-dom millionaires are seeing him in with friendly media coverage and Central American cash. The Sun's headline is already written, (Cam 'e Won!), and it will be emailed from Australia before the debate begins so as to be in time for the first editions.

The price we, the people of theUK, will have to pay if DC does "win", and goes on to govern with the backing of foreign interests is worth considering. Murdoch and Ashcroft don't do favours: they do deals, and the deals they have done with the Tories will come home to roost, after (if) a Cameron victory.

The price we will pay is likely to include a damaging "review" of the BBC and the "privatisation" of some of its most profitable arms....guess who will be first in line for the auction? And of course, the nasty things said about non-doms: they'll disappear, as will any mention of fair taxation for foreign based millionaires who like to live in the UK but don't like paying taxes in the UK.

All that remains is for the Conservatve Party's registered offices to be moved to Belize and the official Tory logo changed to a wide brimmed sun hat with blue bottle corks suspended from the rim.

Hoorah! for patriotism and British Democracy.

Is he in Britain, or in Belize? That Shining Beacon of Tory Sleaze...

It is a great puzzle to me that the Ashcroft affair seems to have died down. In fact no-one seems to know where Ashcroft is: is he in Britain or in Belize, and why has our media lost interest?

As I understand it, Lord Ashcroft is still treated as a "non-dom" for tax purposes, he still gives cash to the Tory Party, he is still a Tory Vice Chair and he is still involved in the campiagns in marginal seats. The question of what he promised to William Hague, when he promised it, when Hague knew (or didn't know) about subtle changes to the outcomes of these agreements and what Hague subsequently told the British public, are all unclear to say the least.

There has to be at least the suspicion of some dirty work and questions against the judgement of senior Tory politicians, particularly William Hague. The BBC has a programme ready for broadcasting but for some reason, after Conservative contacts with the BBC hierarchy, it is being held back from transmission.

David Milliband took up the matter with William Hague during a BBC debate yesterday, but got no answer.

Today he has written to Hague (for the 5th time!) asking for clarification....

William Hague
Conservative Campaign Headquarters
30 Millbank
London
SW1P 4DP

19 April 2010


Dear William,

I wrote to on 21st March, 29th March, 6th April and 12th April asking you two simple questions. I still await a response to the following questions.

1. Why did you say in my presence on March 4th that you learnt "a few months ago" that Lord Ashcroft was not paying tax on overseas earnings because of his non domiciled tax status, when in fact you admitted on Friday night (March 19th) on Any Questions that you knew this to be the case from 2000?

2. On the occasions when Lord Ashcroft has flown you, or others, around the world has he participated in meetings with foreign officials with you in countries where he has business interests?

I have yet to receive a reply and would request that you respond as a matter of urgency. This is matter of credibility for you and trust for the general public.

Yours sincerely,



David Miliband

You can see Milliband's full aricle here...  and sign the letter, if you so wish...

What did Hague Know, as Ashcroft Silences Panorama?

Yesterday David Cameron used all six of his PMQs questions on challenging Gordon Brown to cross picket lines. It was a pretty transparent attempt to take the spotlight off the Ashcroft affair, the sub theme being: Trades Unions are bad thing, Labour's relations with trades Unions are the real problem and Ashcroft is just a side show.

But today's Independent carries a rather sinister story about a Panorama programme which is being kept off the air by Ashcroft's lawyers.

Now, if the real problem is the Trades Union, why would te Tories be so sensitive about a news report on Ashcroft that they resort to heavy handed banning of free reporting of the facts?

Meanwhile reports are emerging that William Hague may have known all along that Ashcroft had made a secret agreement not to pay full UK taxes.

Surely now the pressure must be put on to help the BBC get show on the air. It will not do that the real truth, whether hostile to Ashcroft and the Tories or not, emerges after the election

PS 16.50 Thursday 18th Mar

The bubble has burst.

Polly Toynbee explains here that

Lord Ashcroft's peerage was awarded on the basis that he would become a full UK taxpayer, relinquishing his "non-dom" status and providing Inland Revenue with proof that he was both UK resident and domiciled, according to explosive new evidence released by the government to parliament. 

The relevant letters are here and they show the obvious expectations of the Cabinet Office and William Hague that Ashcroft would be a "permanent resident" of the UK, and how that was changed, and how Hague's promise that Ashcroft would pay taxes in the UK to the tune of "tens of millions", never came to pass.

This has the potential to be an election loser for the Tories. Hague has a lot to explain, as has Ashcroft and Cameron. Namely: why was the original promise of "permanent residence" changed?  whose decision was it? when did Hague know? when did Cameron know? who else in the Conservative Party knew and when? why did they keep it secret? were they wholly honest when questioned on Ashcroft's status over the years?

Tories Question Parliamentary Scrutiny

Next Left looks at the decision by three Tory MPs not to partake in the Parliamentary Administraion Scrutiny Committee (PASC) to investigate the peerage awarded to Lord Ashcroft in 2000. It looks like a politically motivated move by the Tory MPs, and Next Left certainly makes that case IMO.

I have other concerns about it. In any organisation, the conduct of scrutiny has to be scrupulously impartial, and the current PASC chairman Tony Wright has gained a reputation as someone who does not do party politics within his committee. As Next Left shows, under Wright, PASC has produced a number of decisions that challenge the Labour Government.

But what happens if PASC decides there is something wrong with the Ashcroft peerage, and the Tories, having boycotted the committee, refuse to accept the finding?  Will other MPs be tempted to treat the committee as a party-political football? In particular, what happens if the Tories then win the election and form the next government, with a Tory Chair of PASC: will Labour and other opposition MPs feel constrained to keep politics out of the PASC in future? Surely the temptation would  be, having seen the Conservatives (in you opinion) make party politics with the committee, to do exactly the same yourself?

I think it is a bad decision by the Conservatives. Whatever the short-term result, it will have regrettable effects on the workings of PASC in the long run, particularly if the Tories win the election in (May?).

Lord Ashcroft Speaks (or writes actually)

Lord Ashcroft, Tory vice-chair and bankroller, has made a statement about his tax and residence status.

It all appears, if not innocent, then at least legal. Ashcroft is a non-dom, the rules allow non-dom contrubutions, so that's all right then.

But wait a minute, isn't the second part of the equation just as important as the first? There are rules governing election spending. These were designed so that no one party could, through an excess of riches, buy the Westminster election. But isn't that exactly what the Conservatives have been up to for the last three years? By spending Ashcrofts money (or his companies' money) in selected target marginal seats, the Tories have been effectively buying the election because, by definition, the marginals are more likely to change hands with any change in votng intentions. Increase that likelihood and you increase the number of Conservative seats.

Weekend polls show the gap between Labour and Tory narrowing. But if Ashcroft and his party can effectively "buy" the marginal seats, then the will of the electorate can be underminded and ignored.    
The statement in its entirety:

1st March 2020
A Statement From Lord Ashcroft

I am making this statement in advance of the release by the Cabinet Office of limited
information  about  the award  of my  peerage  and  of  the  undertakings  I  gave  at  the
time.

While I value my privacy, I do not want my affairs to distract from the general election
campaign.    I have  therefore decided  to release a copy of  the  letter which  I wrote  to
William Hague, and to expand on what actually happened.

As  the  letter shows,  the undertakings  I gave were confirmed  in a memorandum  to
William  Hague  dated  23rd  March  2000.    These  were  to  "take  up  permanent
residence  in  the UK again" by  the end of  that year.   The other commitment  in  the
memorandum was to resign as Belize's permanent representative to the UN, which I
did a week later.

In  subsequent  dialogue  with  the  Government,  it  was  officially  confirmed  that  the
interpretation  in  the  first undertaking of  the words "permanent  residence" was  to be
that of "a long term resident" of  the UK.    I  agreed  to  this  and  finally  took  up my  seat  in  the House  of  Lords  in October  2000.    Throughout  the  last  ten  years,  I  have  been  declaring  all  my  UK income to HM Revenue.

My  precise  tax  status  therefore  is  that  of  a  “non-dom".    Two  of  Labour's  biggest
donors  - Lord Paul  (recently made a privy councillor by  the Prime Minister) and Sir
Ronald Cohen, both long-term residents of the UK, are also "non-doms".

As for the future, while the non-dom status will continue for many people in business
or public life, David Cameron has said that anyone sitting in the legislature - Lords or
Commons - must be treated as resident and domiciled in the UK for tax purposes.  I
agree with this change and expect to be sitting in the House of Lords for many years
to come.

You have to wonder: is this the whole story? What does "declaring all my income to HM Revenue", actually mean? Has Ashcroft been paying UK taxes on his income? Should he have been? And if he has, what was all the fuss about? What about David Cameron and the succession of senior Tories who failed to tell us the tax status of the Noble Lord: why didn't they know, or tell us, if it was as innocent as the good Lord Ashcroft now says it was?

I really wonder if this issue is as dead as the Conservatives would now wish....