Lord Ashcroft reveals he is a 'non-dom' but intends to stay in the Lords

The Ashcroft ‘non-dom’ attack line is so blatant it is almost laughable. I reckon it bores the pants off punters.

But the pressure is relentless. The issue of a ‘non-dom’ – any non-dom – bankrolling a political party – any political party – has to be addressed.

Tories are starting to hit back with Swarj Paul. Interesting that Ashcoft has made that very point in his letter.

Maybe it will balance out and fizzle out as an electioneering attack line.

Paul? Ashcroft? As I’ve noted earlier, both as bad as each other?

http://theorangepartyblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/why-so-prickly-about-paul-ashcroft.html

Perhaps this will go some way to pacifying left leaning apologists like Andrew Marr. His questioning of George Osborne on the subject on the Andrew Marr show was, as usual, aimed at stirring up ever more suspicion of sleaze. Strange how Labour politicians always seem to get an easier ride on the programme than Tory MPs. When did Marr last ask questions about Lord Paul?

Not many people really care but why did they wait so long to make this statement and give Labour leaning journalists and broadcasters a free shot during interviews?

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TelePolitics: Blog: Lord Ashcroft reveals he is a ‘non-dom’ but intends to stay in the Lords http://bit.ly/d2xgnU by @benedictbrogan…

My first thought is, well, at least by hanging on to his money, he stops teh Broon wasting it on more brainless crap,

However, what would I give to be able to hang onto more of mine?

Lord Paul didn’t lie to Hague, the Cabinet Office, Chameleon, didn’t set up Bearwood solely to channel funds to local parties.

Cashcroft did.

He has made complete and utter fools of 4 Tory leaders at just the right moment.

Decency would require that Chameleon call on him to resign, but . . .

[...] been? To continue to sling mud at the Tories without examining their own affairs … what about Lord Paul, Lakshmi Mittal and Sir Gulam Noon? What about Sir Christopher Ondaatje and Sir Ronald [...]

Barren SFBs
It has been a long time (not long enough though), shame you still have nothing of interest to say.

Good news for David Cameron? Well, maybe the votors are imbeciles. Ashcroft issued his statement to preempt a Freedom of Information request. He’ll keep his non-dom status unless Conservatives win the election – as cycnical as Kenneth Clarke giving up chairmanship of BAT if, but only if, he won the party’s leadership contest. The sudden dash for openness is in contrast to Ashcroft and Hague’s determined evasiveness for the part several years. Comparisons to Lord Paul? Is the best B. Brogan can do to argue “Someone else is as mendacious as us”?

This stinks, whichever way you look at it. It took him long enough to admit this, didn’t it? He and Zak Goldsmith make an unsavoury pair to be involved at a high level: they are buying influence and favours denied to ordinary citizens of more modest means, and what deal has Cameron done with them in return for their money?

It’s no use pointing out the Labour multimillionaire donors; two wrongs don’t make a right.

legalvulture – I hate to have to point out to you that is the ignoble Lord Paul who is buying influence as it may have escaped your notice but it is the Sewer party who are in office, not the Tories, who have no influence.

Legalsparrow might be more apt.

Why the “but” in the headline?

Seriously,

The fact that a rich man who who is supporting policies to deny support to the very poorest in society hides his money so he does not need to pay tax and spend money to buy votes in marginal seats (very democratic) is good news for Cameron! what would be bad news?

This is bad news for the normal British tax payer. At least if I become rich I now where there is a party for sale.

RossB…“At least if I become rich I now(sic) where there is a party for sale.”

They are ALL for sale, but the chances of your becoming rich don’t look good with spelling like that.

The issues are Trust and Transparency (or as it turns out with Cameron, Hypocrisy).
Only George Young was straight with the electorate regarding Ashcroft’s UK tax status. And he was accused by the Tory party of having “miss-spoken”.
Twelve years in the wilderness and still the Tory leadership cannot be straight with the British people.

45govt on Mar 1st, 2010 at 3:41 pm – Absolutley right.

RossB…“At least if I become rich I now(sic) where there is a party for sale.” You are spoilt for options. Just ask Bernie Ecclestone how much it cost to buy Labour.

One would have hoped in a piece starting ‘Good news for David Cameron’ and coming from a Deputy Editor of the DT that at some point we would learn what the good news actually was.

Well excuse me but I missed on that no doubt summat to do with the declining standard of literacy what the DT always going on about am I right?

Of course it doesn’t do David Cameron any favours, still less his breezy and patronising comments in the DT webcast I listened to.

How much more I would have preferred a frank admission that this was an embarrassing situation which was no longer acceptable and which Lord Ashcroft and the Conservatives had now decided to come clean about and to endeavour to put right.

As it is it only served to increase my burgeoning dislike for this incongruously fresh-faced blue-rinse frankenstein creation I am supposed to shoe into government come May.

Well I rather fancy not, not on my nelly.

45govt
I dare say you are the Tory pipsqueak version of ‘A Fair Future For All’.
Let me put it this way, so even the likes of you can understand. Would either Ashcroft or Goldsmith be allowed anywhere near Cameron but for their super-rich backgrounds? Duh.
As for the Sewer Party, I have no time for them either. I am pretty close to saying “a plague on both your houses”. If only there was a ‘none of the above’ option on the ballot paper.
But dweebs like 45govt couldn’t bear that thought, as it would show them unerringly what the majority of UK people REALLY think: that our current politicos, almost without exception, are careerist swine.

When the Culture Secretary sounds off that the BBC may lose its licence fee, one has to think: WHY? Smokescreen for manoeuvres?

The most striking fact has been the arrogant pro-Labour bias that the BBC has shown in reporting this story. They repeat as facts matters already refuted in the same news item.

There is an agenda which is not to be deflected. Let Labour expostulate – no matter Lord Paul and others are non-dom and he does not pay tax on non-UK earnings, in fact he claimed £38000 expenses from the UK taxpayer for a flat he admitted to never using. Let the Lib Dems rant – no matter one of their biggest non-resident donors gave several millions arising from fraud and fled the country – the Lib Dems did not pay it back to the detriment of those defrauded.

The sheer hypocrisy of those whipping the hounds. The BBC has put their own interests in working for a hung parliament in front of those of the country.

“Contrast that to Lord Paul, one of Labour’s biggest donors, who has indicated that he will leave the Lords rather than expose himself to UK tax requirements.”
————–

The trouble is, no-one in the media IS comparing Ashcroft with Lord Paul – or any other of Labour’s non-Dom donors.

The BBC and Channel 4 are blatently partisan – as are most of the newspapers. I await Newsnight – which will no doubt spend half the programme attacking Ashcroft and the Tories, whilst the Labour non-Dom’s are barely mentioned.