[Closed] More Tory Lies?

The point is the hypocrisy that this exposes in the heart of the Tory party - or if you want to be less generous lies and corruption

surely the message from the ashcroft story is that political party funding is inherently flawed, electioneering is an expensive business donors on the scale of ashcroft expect a return on their investments
He wants power and influence with the most powerful man in the country so So hes buying it, doesnt sound very much like democracy

Because it isn't. Anyone who actually thinks their vote means something is deluded.

Holy thread insurrection batman!

Ashcroft has now admitted to being non dom for tax despite leading us to believe he would become domiciled for tax purposes once ennobled. tory party policy is that non doms should not be in parliament. Lots of weasel words from the tories

Hypocrite and a liar.

Funny watching them squirm though wasn't it?
Is it just me or does the Eton Mess seem to be in self destruct mode recently?
Dave's uncomfortable interviews with [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lets-talk-about-sex-johann-hari-grills-david-cameron-over-gay-rights-1888688.html ]Johann Hari[/url] and [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2010_07_thu.shtml ]Jenni Murray[/url] weren't exactly a PR triumph.

And now you're back, can we get round to finding out what's happened to Ernie - not been insulted by the little scamp for weeks.

Perhaps you ought to find a source to back up your assertion that he said he would become domiciled in the UK before you accuse of him of hypocrisy.

The actual text of his promise has not been released under FOI yet. However the public pronouncements at the time and since have made it clear that tory party policy is that he should be domiciled in the UK and paying tax, and that he would comply with this. He might have complied with the letter of this but he sure as heck has not complied with the spirit.

I think you will find it on his website, he said he would become permanently resident in the UK, that is not the same as being domiciled. Domicile is not elective it is a matter of fact, hence the need for the concept of deemed domicile for Inheritance Tax (and IHT only) where you are regarded as domiciled if you live in the UK for 17 out of 20 years.

He did not give an undertaking regarding domicile because he couldn't change it at a whim, whereas he could regarding residence which he met.

Mefty - thats what he is claiming but not what others understood it to mean. Until the actual text has been released we don't know but its clear he has intended to mislead and some things are not resolved such as his electoral status - Cameron has said he is registered to vote but no one has been able to uncover him on any register.

He may have complied with the actual words of the declaration but he sure as heck has not done so with the spirit of it and nor does he meet the standard espoused in tory party policy.

So - a hypocrite and a liar

Just to bring a little balance to what Comrade Jeremy has said:

"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”."

Statement from Lord Ashcroft.

Just because some choose to misunderstand something to suit their political purposes does not make one a hypocrite or a liar. As I stated above you can not change your domicile on a whim, you can change your residence. He undertook to change what he was able to and did so. As he is resident here he is entitled to vote there is no requirement to be domiciled here to vote.

As far as Tory policy is concerned they want to change the law so that a member of either House is [u]deemed[/u] to be domiciled and resident here for tax purposes. It needs to be done this way because as stated already domicile can not be changed on a whim.

A neat sidestepping of the important questions. The two labour peers have never tried to hide their status nor have they been caught telling lies.

Ashcroft has been caught out lying as has Cameron over this and no amount of weasel words can hide that. Cameron has said Ashcroft is registered to vote - he is not. He said he would be domiciled for tax purposes and he is not. Tory party policy is that all in the commons / lords should be full UK residents as stated in the past. Now modified to say only if in the legislature.

When the full text is released we will see more. It took a FOI request and years of fighting to get this admission from Ashcroft

No point in letting lack of sources get in the way of a rant. Show us where any this was said TJ, Ashcroft's memo to Hague detailing the terms of the undertaking are on his website.

We do not know yet exactly what the agreement was - thats going to be released under FOI soon.

As for cameron - he was quoted as saying that Ashcroft was registered to vote but no one can find him on the electoral register. The change in emphasis on the policy is clear for anyone to see from numerous public pronouncements on this. You may choose to believe its all above board. It clearly is not

Source?

Any newspaper website or BBC.

Link?

mefty - The truth doesn't really matter in this case.
It's the outright refusal to answer the question, the dodgy manoeuvring and the perception that the public have been misled AGAIN that is the real story.

The Tories will never convince the electorate that they are not the party of privilege unless they are honest and transparent.
Thankfully in this case they have prevaricated, misled and refused to answer questions to which they admitted they knew the answers.

Just goes to further undermine Dave's assertions that they are the party of the people.

RS - I can see your point of view and have some sympathy with it, I am just not too keen on false allegations.

i think its unfair to single out the torries
although they have been particularly sneaky and evasive about this one

it just highlights that
a) the tax system is more a collection of loopholes for the privileged
b) the party political funding system is dirtier than rab c nesbits y-fronts
c) the way we 'elect' mps; commomns and lords is massively flawed and needs overhauling depserately

mefty - what false allegations?

TJ - just provide some sources

For what?

Gentlemen, shall we just call it a draw?

The point is that the BBC is now leading with this story as another example of political sleaze - later this afternoon they will start to emphasize Ashcroft's statement as quoted above by Cranberry, just to give the story some legs and to provide some balance.

Still doesn't negate the fact that the Tories have known the answer to this question all along and refused to provide an answer - hopefully this is what the electorate will remember.

Where Ashcroft said he was domiciled in the UK

Where David Cameron said he was registered to vote (although he is entitled to based on his residency)

After Ashcroft's nomination for a peerage was rejected in 1999 - in part because he was then considered a tax exile - Hague wrote to Downing Street demanding that it reverse its decision. Hague said Ashcroft intended to become resident in Britain for tax and added: "This decision will cost him (and benefit the Treasury) tens of millions a year in tax, yet he considers it worthwhile."

Clear quote with the implication Ashcroft would be paying UK tax on all his income.

Ashcroft has given more than £5m to the Tories in recent years. The Observer established last year that Bearwood Corporate Services Limited, the British-based company Ashcroft uses to make donations to the Tories, is ultimately controlled by a company in Belize, Stargate Holdings. At the time, a Conservative spokesman said all the donations complied with the law. The Electoral Commission launched a formal investigation into the donations in January.

Edit - crossed posts.

Both those things are clear in the public domain. On the residency Ashcroft may have complied with the letter of the undertaking but certainly not the spirit. I'll get you the stuff on Cameron.

Same article - the mechanism that Ashcroft uses to transfer money tot eh tory party is being investigated and on the surface is questionable at best.

Plenty more out there about the constantly changing tory policy on this area, plenty more there about the parallel investigations into him and the information commissioners remarks, easy to find Camaron quoting that Ashcroft is registered to vote but no one can find him on the roll.

The point about being registered to vote is a complete red herring because sitting Lords aren't entitled to vote anyway.

He did become resident for tax purposes as Hague said he would. Still waiting for sources.

mefty - it does matter because of the donations and because Cameron has said he is registered to vote

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-blue-baron-how-the-tories-rely-on-ashcroft-1812270.html

On Sunday, David Cameron said donations by Lord Ashcroft were "within the law" because he was resident in the UK and on the electoral register

Now no one can find him on the electoral roll.

Mefty - nothing will convince you so I shall not bother any more.

He might just be within the letter of the declarations and statements from various people but he is not within the spirit. He is under investigation on several fronts. The tory party policy has clearly been changed to accomodate him. The tory party have done their very best to avoid the questions and to frustrate the investigations into the holding company and the information commissioner has been very scathing.

It stinks to high heaven.

The only quote is "within the law" the rest appears to be supposition.

You will not persuade me because as so frequently you rant and rave according to your prejudices without being able to back it up factually. This is playing out much as I predicted it would on the first page of this thread.

Found the full quote [url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954956.ece ]here[/url], the BBC report was supposition.

“If people give money individually, they have to be resident in the UK and on the electoral register and that’s a rule that we apply and if it’s a UK company giving you the money it has to be a proper operating company.

“So we always make those checks, all the donations that have been made by Lord Ashcroft or by any British companies associated with him. As far as we’re concerned, we’ve checked and they are within the law. The Labour party and the Liberal Democrats should do exactly the same thing.”

Mefty. You are the blind one here. Information commissioner criticises him, his holding company is under investigation.

Its my prejudice to hate hypocrisy cant and humbug for a ny politicians.

Ashcroft has been forced into a declaration by the information commissioner, and is still blocking the investigation into his holding company.

there will be more lies to come out yet but the tories are hoping it will be delayed until after the election.

We have a liar bankrolling a liar here and the blind do not see it.

You've failed to produce any source for your first set of allegations so true to form you rant and rave about another lot to try and cover this up.

TJ you sh*t stirrer.

Mefty - what do you want more sources for? What don't you believe? Everthing I have alleged is in the public arena and proven

I guess what this thread proves is that those of a left of centre bias will not see or understand those of a right of centre bias. And vice versa. Some of it is very amusing "banter" but sometimes it gets a tad heated as all of the keyboard warriors rise up and a bit out of hand and personal. Not ideal.

Personally, I cannot stand G Brown as I believe him to be the worst Chancellor in living memory and not much better as PM and hope very much that he is dumped firmly out of No 10 at the election. But that's my personal opinion and one that will not resonate with everyone. We have freedom of choice and those who disagree and would want to see another 5 years of him will have their opportunity to vote for him. But even 20 years from now I won't be wishing for a funeral pyre and a street party when he dies.

.............what's happened to Ernie - not been insulted by the little scamp for weeks.

Sorry geezer ................ I've given it up for lent 😐

But you sound disappointed ...........try starting a thread announcing that you are Marxist Christian Homeopathic pill-popping Tesco shopper, who lives in a caravan on disability benefit............ the insults should start flying in,
in no time at all 💡

you are Marxist Christian

Strange but true
[img] [/img]

Sorry had other things to do, TJ you are yet to provide one source. I repeat

Where Ashcroft said he was domiciled in the UK

Where David Cameron said he was registered to vote (although he is entitled to based on his residency)

mefty - its all there if you want it. Search the archive of any decent paper or just have a google.

Nothing I say or point to will satisfy you but it is clear that he intentionally mislead people and Cameron has as well. Read it in the papers!

There may be a form of weasel words he can use but it is clear he has intentionally mislead both own party, parliament as a whole and the public at large.

If you cannot smell the stench of corruption then you have no political nose.

TJ - you are the one making the allegations so provide a link to a quote from a primary source that proves your point, you are yet to provide anything.

mefty - its all there if you want it. Search the archive of any decent paper or just have a google.

Nothing I say or point to will satisfy you but it is clear that he intentionally mislead people and Cameron has as well. Read it in the papers!

There may be a form of weasel words he can use but it is clear he has intentionally mislead both own party, parliament as a whole and the public at large.

If you cannot smell the stench of corruption then you have no political nose.

I did and I couldn't so would appreciate your help as you are the one making the allegations so must have it at your fingertips.

As was pointed out on BBC 6 o'clock news this evening, the Labour Party are also quite happily taking donations from nom-doms, which makes them by far and away the biggest hypocrites. They are, after all the ones who will move heaven and earth to get their children into the best schools while denying quality schooling to ordinary people, and who sneer at 'Tory Toffs' when they went to equally posh schools and universities, and come from equally elevated backgrounds, much more so, in quite a few cases. Harriet Harmon's privileged background anyone? I despise the current government, so-called ‘socialists' wallowing up to their eyeballs in the trough. Just like the Soviet Politbureau, North Korea, Mao's government. Live in luxury while keeping the people as downtrodden as possible. Scum.

I'm your average voter who doesn't really understand most of what has been said in this thread. Can anyone explain to me why it is remotely relevant? Squabbling over who gives how much to whom; I'm sure in my own mind that bending the rules is prevalent in all political parties but I'm more interested in how a party is going to run the country for the benefit of us than how they raise their poltical funds. It becomes relevant to me if favours are bestowed for those funds and I'm sure such corrruption happens whatever hue your politics may be.

Countzero - whilst not ideal the differences is the two labour non dom peers are not subject to investigation nor have they ever hidden their status.

psling - it points to two things - that Cameron is a hypocrite thus unfit to govern 'cos whilst some on this thread would like to pretend otherwise this corrupt individual Ashcroft was given a peerage on the understanding he became Uk resident and paid UK tax. Indeed tory party policy was that anyone in the commons or lords should be UK resident and tax payer. He appears now to have confirmed he has not done so and is using weasel words to try to justify it.

However it is now clear he has persistently misled people over this pledge.

Ashcroft has raised so much money for the Tory party and they are so beholden to him and also he knows where the bodies are buried that the Tories foreign policy is distorted to suit him and his interests.

I posted this thread to show up the hypocricy of the tory party and of the tory fanbois on here and as antidote to the never ending maoning about the labour party.

We are talking tax avoidance on an extreme scale and buying of peerages and influence thru at best shady and most likely illegal acts. Ashcroft is still delaying the parliamentary inquiry into his funding of the Tories thru an illegal shell company.

So Ashcrofts corruption shows how unfit Cameron is to goveren

Watched Channel 4 Dispatches this evening?

😡

We are talking tax avoidance on an extreme scale and buying of peerages and influence thru at best shady and most likely illegal acts

hahahahahah - good one there TJ!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Ecclestone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmi_Mittal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulam_Noon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Aldridge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Garrard_(property_developer)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sainsbury,_Baron_Sainsbury_of_Turville
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Aldridge

Now, who "borrowed" all that money again?

And the relevance of that Zulu? Nil relevance to Ashcroft. There is a longer list of Tories - some of whom fled the country to avoid proescution ( Porter) some of whom ended up in jail.

jeez TJ - for someone who occasionally manages a lucid post you've really lost the the plot on this one. If you are going to hurl accusations around such as tax avoidance, resident for UK tax, domicile etc with clearly absolutely no idea how they apply or what they actually mean it just makes you look like a pavlovian chippy leftie with a poor grasp of both English and the national tax code (quite understandable - it is the largest tax code in the world, now exceeding even the Indian one and that's saying something).

Ashcroft has been embarrassed into making an open statement about his exact tax status but that doesnt get you anywhere near tax avoidance or illegality (which you allege, but as mefty keeps on asking you with futility you fail to provide any sources for or evidence that he has actually committed or even been alleged to have done by someone, anyone, more knowledgeable than you about the subject). As I said earlier in the thread if he is proved to have done anything illegal I'll still eat SFB's shorts.

This thread is making you look more and more Scargillian by the post TJ. How about trying to re-engage your brain on this one or at least admit most of your foaming is the pure ranting of the jealous left...

It really amuses me when the left and right passionately defend their relevant parties. TJ, New Labour have screwed the middle earners with constant tax rises whilst doing little to f all to chase those who are using tax avoidance.

As was pointed out on BBC 6 o'clock news this evening, the Labour Party are also quite happily taking donations from nom-doms, which makes them by far and away the biggest hypocrites. They are, after all the ones who will move heaven and earth to get their children into the best schools while denying quality schooling to ordinary people

Wasn't it that well known socialist and woman of the people Dianne Abbot who moved her kid to private school whilst presiding over some of the most run-down schools in the country?

If you want to start talking hypocrisy and corruption, two words; Peter Mandelson. If you are (rightly) going to pour scorn on (call me) Dave then may I remind you of the prototype, Tony "I'm a pretty straight sort of guy" Blair.

As for the Tories, they don't and will never give a flying f about the vast majority of the population. Remember Hesletine's smug, self-satisfied announcements of the pit closures? Look at those communities now. Screwed. Cheers chaps. John Major and his no pain, no gain mantra? Yeah, I bet he really hurt.

As for the Liberal Dem's, please. They don't know what they want or who they want to represent. Mr. Clegg, try as he might, is little more than Dave / Tony-lite.

Who will I vote for in the forth coming election? I honestly don't know. I've not seen one polititian who inspires me or fills me with confidence that they are honest.

The inherant nature of the politician is corrupt.. 'tis common sense.

[url=

Please don't ask me what would come after this should it ever happen..

Things are much easier for an apologist like TJ when his beloved party are in opposition. That way they can promise everything but don't need to deliver anything. Anyone with eyes can see that NuLabour are at least as corrupt as the Tories, but mixed in with even less competence and fewer principles.

I long for the days of feudal dictatorship.Ok,the black death,Vikings and being hung for poaching the Lord's deer were constant risks,but did we have MP's fiddling their ex's? Did we heck.
TJ,some answers to the above questions asking for evidence of "most likely illegal" acts that you describe above would strengthen your argument.As it is you just look like you are trying to shift the argument every time somebody makes a point. New Labour=Old Tories. What is the difference?

Ashcroft has raised so much money for the Tory party and they are so beholden to him and also he knows where the bodies are buried that the Tories foreign policy is distorted to suit him and his interests

That is a worryingly paranoid mindset you display there.If that was the case,how about the union influence of Labour? Is that not the same thing?

[i]Watched Channel 4 Dispatches this evening?[/i]
I think you should post your views about it over here 🙂
[url] http://forum.mpacuk.org/forumdisplay.php?f=18 [/url]

has anyone blown the house down yet, or is it all still huffing and puffing 😉

Why is anyone surprised about this, why do people get so hot'n'bothered, and ultimately WGAFF....

..the rich and priveleged (both elected and unelected) have, do and always will run the country, control the flow of capital and evade their financial liabilities - in part (quite a big part) because the un-rich are too indolent to do anything about it.

They may bash one off on the internet, form a Farcebook group, call some names but don't actually [i]do[/i] anything about it because , let's face it, they're pretty comfortable really - housed, fed, provided with gadgets and toys, freedom to whinge etc etc................

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk_politics/8544547.stm ]Mandy has tried and failed. Still all hot air.[/url]

It does amuse me people calling me a labour supporter. I am not as pointed out many times. I have no time for the self serving hypocrites of any colour of party

As for evidence -its clearly all there if you want to see it and much of it I have put further up in this thread.

Of course the tory fanbois here don't want to see you corrupt and venal this man is.

The investigation in bearwood services, his attitude infront of the information commissioner. the fact he clearly misled over his tax status. etc etc.

he will be found out but the tories hope not until after the election.

the stench of corruption is clear Just read the papers.

Plnty more if you want to open your eyes but here is a link to some of the skulduggery http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/01/lord-ashcroft-tax-conservatives

the stench of corruption is clear

Of course it is. But what's also clear is that you only ever come on here and rant on about the Tory flavour.

Most people, me included, don't care whether these people are UK domiciled or not. Ok lying about it isn't a good sign, but I'm more interested in the sort of lies that take us into illegal wars of agression.

Non-doms and donations:

[img] [/img]

Well said epicsteve.

TJ you make good points & argue them well but you are soooo one-sided its unreal, any chance of being a little more balanced? Fine if you dont want to but at least admit your bias. I would love to hear you argue so eloquently & with equal fervour about Labour wrong-doings but I guess flying pigs are more likely..

:wink:The point is that he is part of the legislator of this country and he claims to not really live her just to dwell here for a long time. I find it odd that essentially someone who considers themselves a foreign national - non dom- who lives here long term * can become deputy chair of a political party and exert influence over an election and policies in a country he does not consider to be his own.
For balance I agree that is unacceptable that Non Doms donate to any party but is on far larger scale when that person is the Deputy Chairman of your party and has not answered the question directly for 10 years and then only because of a Freedon of Information request... he has been less than honest on this issue for over a decade
*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.

EDIT: Does TJ defend the labour party over the Iraq war - weapons iof mass destruction dossier? He is equally clear when the Labour party have lied/decieved /manioulated information. Have you people banged your heads and got rotational injuries from your helmets that are affecting your memories

So, to sum up - Ashcroft is non-domiciled. Under this arrangement, he is legally obliged to pay taxes on his UK earnings. He pays taxes on his UK earnings, but a lot of people are upset because he hasn't responded, until now, to a lot of hypocritical badgering from the Labour party (which gets [i]exactly[/i] the same sort of donations from other perfectly legal non-doms) and it's supporters for confirmation of this.

Meanwhile, the BBC continues to pursue this non-story as if it's the scandal of the century, even going to the length of having a reporter outside number 10 this morning say: "Lord Ashcroft doesn't pay his UK taxes"...

I've long since regarded the BBC as propaganda wing of the NuLabour project.

PS: For clarity, there is a difference between "resident" and "Domiciled" according to law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domicile_%28law%29

You might say that Ashcroft is playing the game to his advantage, but so what? That's politics and the human condition.

Recognise that and you're safe from turning into an ideologue who spends his time howling at the moon because it won't turn into cheese for him. 😉

It strikes me Labour are having a go at Ashcroft in the hope he may take a step back from the Tory party,thus removing a huge source of revenue,which will be kind of handy in the next twelve or so months.
It is funny how labour are so keen to demand answers in the public interest,but so keen to avoid giving them.

Junkyard;he is equally clear when the Labour party have lied etc,etc.No he isn't.

i think the issue is that hague told blair when ashcroft was given his lordship that he would become a uk resident and that that would be worth 10million a year to the uk in taxes (so i read in that staunch tory rag the guardian)

as said before if you sit in the lords, are chairman of one of our 2 parties in this thriving healthy democracy then at least have the decency, patriotism-call it what you like, to pay taxes here

mandy bleating on is hypocritical especially if torry boy guidos graph is to be believed

the stench of corruption from the pig palace of westminster is overwhelming
do you reckon may day will see some big riots this year??

im off to start designing my placards and molotovs

TJ _ Hate to say this but the Guardian is just as capable of poor journalism as the Daily Mail, they have determined permanent residence for this article equals domicile which it does not. (I could provide chapter and verse on this but quantum of tax knowledge is generally inversely proportional to attractiveness to the opposite (or same if desired ) sex.)

As I said earlier, choosing to be mislead (especially when the details of the deal were confidential) are just political positioning. Still waiting for sources as requested, remarkable how long it is taking to find them considering how prevalent they are.

Junkyard - there are plenty of non dom political strategists in both the Labour camp and the Tory camp, I think Labour use a load of Clinton advisers and the Tories used a Aussie guy for the last election. These guys will have a big influence on the election as well. I don't see a problem with this and I don't see a big difference between the party's non dom donors ("your non dom donor is worse than mine" is all a bit reminiscent of the playground). Ashcroft is hated by the other parties because what he is doing is effective and the vitriol directed at him appears to bear this out.

TJ can defend himself but IMHO he does berate the labour party for their lies over Iraq.

I am genuinely surprised that most of the people on here dont actually care that the deputy leader of the Conservative party is essentially a foreign national who is staying here for a bit. At least when the people in Brussels make laws for us they will live by them rather than pi55 off back to the place they call home. TBH I would not even let him vote here let alone stand for office.
as the wiki links states

A person can remain domiciled in a jurisdiction even after they have left it, if they have maintained sufficient links with that jurisdiction or have not displayed an intention to leave permanently.

Mefty the parties can use and pay who they please to advise them but to have them as Deputy Chair is different. Are you really claiming he has no more influence over the Tory party than say someone who works for them as a paid adviser? Surely the Deputy Chairman position has some power and influence? Also these people are doing their job Ashcroft is donating money resources etc

Junkyard - He is not deputy leader, William Hague is I think, he is vice chairman, the Chairman of the Party is basically responsible for the administration and running of the party machine as opposed to having a policy role(i.e. Central Office staff, constituency agents etc.). The Chairman of the Party in power will normally have a seat in Cabinet as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The Vice Chairman I believe is also involved in running the party machine. The difference between Ashcroft and other party's donors seems to be he retains more control over how the machine spends his gifts. His position gives him no formal policy role. So no, I don't see any difference between non dom donors, if he decides to retain a measure of control over his gifts, I don't see a problem, it is no different to a hired hand from abroad having a say.

come on mefty, you say he has no more influence than other donors but retains an influence over how his money is spent

surely thats a contradiction

Did I? Can't see where, but to clarify, my logic is if it is ok to have a foreign strategist, which I think it is, and a non dom donor (which I am not saying it is, just that everyone has them too) then I don't see a difference between that and the roles being combined in the form of one person i.e. Ashcroft.

Hence my view that this is nothing sinister, just a playground argument over whose non dom donor is worse.

The Mash, as usual, nails it...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/angry-taxpayers-demand-tutorial-from-lord-ashcroft-201003022518/

hahah love the mash.
especially the last two paras! 😉

I've just read that too, thought of this thread but Woppit beat me to it by 18 minutes!

Mefty your claim that the Deputy chairman [sorry I meant that not deputy leader which is William Hague - do you recall his answer to Paxman on Ashcroft?]does nothing and has no influence is just silly. Who is leading the campaign in marginals that may win them the election - he wil have no power do you really beleive that?

From his own website

In December 2005, I was appointed Deputy Chairman of the Conservative Party by David Cameron, with special responsibility for the Target Seat campaign and opinion research polling and I am Treasurer of the International Democrat Union.
Over the past two decades I have gathered over 160 Victoria Cross medals, the largest collection in the World. I am passionate in my belief that [b]our country [/b]owes an enormous debt of gratitude to these heroes of courage

Maybe he will come and live here when his Tory mates are in charge again? It would be v costly for him to move here while Gordon the grabber is still in no 10. Of course he will expect influence in return for his money.He already has a lordship,why is he any dirtier than the red rosette wearing eq? Or is it because he has the potential to make a difference to the Cons election results that the labour press office/sorry bbc, are crying foul. Labour are starting to look like a shower of desperate bullies.
I had the luck to leave school at about the same time Thatcher decided the abandon Scotland and use it as an experemental area for new taxes.Even that is starting to seem no worse than the last 10 years of Labour.

Is it true that Ashcroft purchased the original cheque that Brown bounced when he was a youngster? Sure I read somewhere that he has it framed in his bog.

im not sure how the 'righties' on here see this as a bbc/ guardian led attack

its reported on the times and telegraph front page slightly different slant but all repeating the same info

of course its a smear by labour,
but there is a general electionon on the way! you may have noticed nastiness flying about from all sides; gordon brown beats up old ladies, mandy is spawn of the devil, osborne is thicker than dermot oleary, david cameron used poor people for toast racks at eton etc etc

Kimbers;is none of that true? 😯