Mumsnet Talk

Is it a non story? Given that Labour also has Lord Paul, a non-dom donor to party funds? Does the fact that Ashcroft is Deputy Chairman and has targeted his funds towards marginal seats really make a difference to the morality of it all - i.e that you shouldn't serve as a UK Lord if you aren't declaring all income, regardless of where it is earned, to the UK Govt?

I don't KNOW

It's all far too CONFUSING

WHAT'S WITH THE SHOUTING? IT'S SCARY.

Yes, I'm confused too. Much as I'd love to see the Conservatives drown in a quagmire of their own shite, my moral compass is all over the shop.

It's not so much that he's a non-dom but about exactly what he promised after he was turned down for the peerage the first time around, the evasion of his status since then and how he can be a major influence on a party that says it wants to end non-dom Lords.

His first peerage was rejected because he conducted his business outside of the UK. Following that some say that he promised to become a UK tax payer, others that he only said that he would live in the UK.

Either way since then he's been dodging the question of his tax status and it's now only come to light as there's a Freedom of Information request about to reveal all.

I am channelling Caitlin Moran and it's EXHAUSTING

<flops down for a quiet fag>

The Non Dom status of Lord Paul, Sir Ronald Cohen and Lakshmi Mittal who are all Labour donors is the same as Lord Ashcroft according to Guido Fawkes blog.

A very clear analysis of who has donated what is presented on Iain Dale blog at 10.12 am today.

Scroll down to the heading: Donations From Non Doms: Labour's Hypocrisy

"Donations From Non Doms: Labour's Hypocrisy"

As said before the issue isn't so much that he's a non-dom but that he might have broken a promise, was evasive about his status and about how committed the party is to banning non-doms from power given his position.

I don't know how much of an issue that actually is or what my take on it is.

But that does seem to be what the "problem" is.

Retaliation by pointing the finger at Labour non-doms is a Tory attempt to dodge the real question and shift the argument.

Unfortunately for labour they have more non doms and more dodgy doners, along with a fair few mp's who didn't reveal donations than the Conservatives have.

I like Nick Robinsons take on it for the beeb (and I don't like Robinson).

I think he who is without sin...

It's politics.

It is bloody confusing, I'll give it that. But on the face of it the Tories and Labour are as bad as each other and shouldn't really be indulging in finger-pointing. But that's politics, as atlantis says. The Tories & Ashcroft are utter morons for keeping shtum on this 'til an election is upon them.

Back on Labour, I don't think much coverage has been given to Jack Dromey being selected to go for a safe Labour seat, despite his wife's (Harriet Harman) being terribly keen on all-women shortlists & seeing more women MPs. Dromey just happens to be Secretary General of Unite which in turn has donated an approximate £10 million to Labour over the last decade. Pretty convenient!

Maybe this all more grist to the mill for the idea of publicly funded parties? Don't personally like the idea but some are keen.

Public funding just means that we would pay good money for political parties to paper the walls with ridiculous posters and keep the recycling bins full of leaflets.... And, given that the election is usually determined by the results in a fairly small number of marginal seats, it's debatable whether all the advertising makes any material difference to the outcome Personally, I think that if Lord Sainsbury or similar wants to finance that kind of caper, they're welcome to do so. I certainly don't.

The trouble with Ashcroft (unlikes other non-dom contributors to other parties) is that he is central to the entire Tory campaign and would have huge power & influence if they were elected. And therefore we should ask is it wise for a man who doesn't even live here or contribute any tax to the running of our society to potentially be in that position. Over to you Dave....

I reckon it's just a vote winner

"oh look - this blokey here that arselicks is a Tory/supports them is non-dom, but agrees that people who sit in the HoL should be dom - oh wow look how honest and clean the Tories are now"

vom

next please

But as someone so cleverly said on the news - if your vote depends on you supporting and paying tax, then surely those that live off state benefits should also be denied the vote???

The fact is, is that if we had or earned the amount of money these donors do, we would do the same thing .... politics aside

"The fact is, is that if we had or earned the amount of money these donors do, we would do the same thing"

But it's not about being a non-dom, that's what the tory party is trying to turn this argument in to.

The issue is that we have a non-dom politician who is a big part of a party that says we shouldn't have non-dom politicians, a man who has been incredibly evasive about his status and possibly broke a promise to become a UK tax payer.

Would money make anyone a hypocrite and a liar?

That is if he is those things....

... and giving it a touch more though it's very interesting that the Tory response isn't to deal with Lord Ashcroft in particular but is instead an attempt to broaden the argument and take it's focus away.

"And therefore we should ask is it wise for a man who doesn't even live here or contribute any tax to the running of our society to potentially be in that position."

But he has publically stated that he will return when the conservatives return to power as will a lot of ex-pats, he does pay some tax here on his British companies and the i'm sure the amount of money he has invested here keeps part of the city afloat, so I don't see a problem with him helping in the tory campaign.

"But as someone so cleverly said on the news - if your vote depends on you supporting and paying tax, then surely those that live off state benefits should also be denied the vote???"

And prisoners, they all get the vote, old age pensioners no longer pay tax (most) so should we take there vote? Ex pats have always been able to vote and all parties are busy contacting them at the moment to make sure they use it (mostly conservatives who were lucky enough to escape living under labour).

For me, the problem is just how shifty and dishonest the whole business has made the Conservative leadership look, They have been repeatedly saying, for 10 years, that Lord Ashcroft gave assurances and that those had been met. But now it turns out that the publicly-given assurance that he would sort out the situation (whatever weasel words he used, and then redefined) then got watered down into a quiet little back-room agreement. And the Conservative leadership have been making misleading statements for all these years, making it sound like Lord Ashcroft had done what the public assumed the assurances meant.

They an twist the words how they like, we were misled by what they said and did, and I have no doubt it was deliberate.

It just reaffirms to me that they are untrustworthy politicians who think they don't have to be honest with the voter/taxpayer about things they don't think we need to know. Not that the others are any better, but they hardly paint themselves as the shining alternative.

It's all boleaxe. Labour are in it re: donations up to their armpits, the BBC obsesses about Ashcroft becasue that's its bias and certain sheep follow it becasue they love bleating about evil Tories. If the man in the street was going to go off voting Tory becasue of Lord A he'd have decided that a long time ago.

..and what's more, it was the Labour government that approved Ashcroft's status, so Mandelson's call for an investigation have fallen someone flat. Plus he's never claimed expenses for attending the Lords whereas Lord Paul has creamed off a fat sum despite being rather well-off and a non-dom himself. I agree that the whole business makes the Tories look monumentally shifty though. But politics is a shifty business.

I always found Lord Paul's devotion to Indira Gandhi, that noted lover of democracy, highly suspect. I itch for HMRC to give him a good going over. It'll never happen.

as many have said, all parties in it to their armpits. but i think the issue with the tories/ashcroft is they could/should have been absolutely transparent about this from the start, it just seems a tad naive that they werent.

i also find this whole donating to constituencies thing naive.i reckon there might be a strong backlash in those constituencies which have received funding, particulary pushing wavering tory voters in these marginals towards the lib dems.

It seems to me that Ashcroft just isn't choosing to pay income tax twice on his overseas earnings; he pays tax in Belize on his earnings there, and UK tax on his earnings here. I would do exactly the same - if I earned money where I live in Belgium, I'd pay Belgian tax, and then UK tax on my income there.

I just object to the election being bought with unpaid taxes. (disclaimer, Labour just as bad IMHO)

Extra taxes Ashcroft would have paid over the last 10 years if he had not had non-dom status £123 million
NHS deficit £130 million

<<sigh>>

He has paid tax in Belize on his earnings there - he hasn't paid tax on them here as they were earned elsewhere. Presumably Belize does well out of him and would be peeved were he to pay tax on all his income here and none there where the money is earned.

If he wasn't a non-dom, would he have carried on the business interests that earn him the money?