[Closed] More Tory Lies?

Again still surprised you are all so right wing that you are turning a blind eye to a tax avoiding foreigner having new found liberal tolerance to a pikey not paying tax ?

He doesn't avoid paying tax. He pays tax on his UK earnings, or perhaps you didn't read that bit...

He doesn't pay tax in this country on his overseas earnings because he is not classed as a "resident", or perhaps you didn't read that bit either...

I don't think I did say that - I did say he had no formal policy role (which I think would be inappropriate) but has a role in the party machine as described in your post and on his website. I just don't see the difference between a non dom Labour peer donor, the use of foreign strategists and Ashcroft. Both parties are in a similar positions, Lord Paul's money or one of their foreign strategists could win the election for Labour, who knows? I just don't see a big difference between the parties on this.

Mr W - domiciled actually.

Mr W - I thought you were either UK resident or non-UK resident for tax purposes; so you pay the tax on your earnings in your country of residence. Let me guess now his UK earnings were pennies whilst his non-UK earnings were millions ❗

Or at least that's what the IR (in the US and UK) told me.

Thank you junkyard. I just don't need to shout about labour wrongdooings as there are plenty on here to do so

mefty - Member

............ I just don't see the difference between a non dom Labour peer donor, the use of foreign strategists and Ashcroft. Both parties are in a similar positions, Lord Paul's money or one of their foreign strategists could win the election for Labour, who knows? I just don't see a big difference between the parties on this.

The difference is the deceit. I am amazed you cannot see this nor the huge influence Ashcroft has. Non so blind as those that cannot see?

Source? Link?

I'll bet that there isn't a single comrade or fellow-traveller on here who is moaning and bitching about Ashcroft that pays as much tax as he does in the UK.

If you want to whine about him - post up how much income tax and NI YOU paid last year.

I bet there's plenty who pay a higher percentage of their income though.

FFS, so a politician lied; is it news?
weapons of mass destruction, anyone?

what deceit TJ? - come on, you're really labouring whatever point it is you're trying to get across.

You have Labour non-doms donating more than Ashcroft.
You have Labour non-dom donors actively lobbying the incumbent government for favour
yet you are trying to make out that there's something utterly heinous in the vice chairman (the money and admin man) of a political party only paying tax on his UK earnings rather than his international income. he has not broken the law but you seem to think that by screeching loud enough that he really has. If you cant accept that he's done nothing illegal, than at least be honest and confess that you're upset simply because he's bank rolling the tory machine and that youve misread his statements on his tax status rather than this faux outrage at some imagined evilness.

He doesn't avoid paying tax. He pays tax on his UK earnings, or perhaps you didn't read that bit...
He doesn't pay tax in this country on his overseas earnings because he is not classed as a "resident", or perhaps you didn't read that bit either

No need ot suggest I am not reading iwhen in realoity you are not thinking.
Clearly he avoids tax what other motive is there at work here?

stoner +1

>clearly AVOIDING tax

Legally, as thousands of people do in this country.

I avoid tax by receiving an allowance for the miles I cycle in the course of my business. Am I to be strung up next to Lord A?

Junkyard- please call up the inland revenue and ask them if tax avoidance is illegal.

I also avoided tax by taking part in the C2W scheme and now have a nice bike paid for tax free 🙂

I dont know how you can live with yourself allthepies.

Think of all those nurses in scotland that are facing a pay cut in light of your seflish tax planning.

Stoner +2.

Stoner - Member

what deceit TJ? - come on, you're really labouring whatever point it is you're trying to get across.

come on - are you that thick? This is the two main planks of deceit

He said he would be domiciled and pay tax in the UK - he has not and it took an investigation by the information commissioner ( which he attempted to thwart) to find this out. Yes there may be weasel words to get him off on a technicality but clearly he mislead not only the parliament but also his own party and the public at large

He uses a shell company to donate to the tory party. Under investigation at the moment (that he is also trying to block) This company has published reports showing only one client and £300 000 of income but has donated £5 000 000 to the tories.

Then you should look at his corruption in Belieze.

I must say I have never noticed any Tory bias on stw.

TJ - Guess what? Source? Link?

http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/b-liar.htm

“The Treasury dropped plans to increase tax on private equity just days before two of the industry's richest tycoons made donations to Labour worth £1.25m.

In the run-up to last December's budget statement, ministers ordered officials to draw up proposals to end the special low tax enjoyed by venture capitalists.

However, according to Treasury insiders, hostility to the plan from No 10 meant that the private equity sector escaped any tax rises.

The pre-budget report of the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, on December 9 also exempted private equity bosses from the bonus tax imposed on other highly paid City workers.

Nine days later on December 18, Nigel Doughty, the chairman of the private equity giant Doughty Hanson and owner of Nottingham Forest Football Club, who has an estimated fortune of £119m, gave £1m to Labour.

On December 23 the venture capitalist Sir Ronald Cohen, whose fortune is estimated at £220m, donated £250,000 to Labour.”

Sunday Times, 28 February, Main Section, top of page 13.

Some questions I'd like answers to

Ashcroft admits he has non-dom staus, on what grounds was it granted?

How can a British citizen who claims to be a permanent resident have this status?

When did he become a non-dom?

Why has it taken so long to confirm his status?

Did "callmedave" know about Ashcrofts status?

Is the firms that channels Ashcroft's money really British?

Will he relinquish his non-dom status

How can a member of the House of Lords be Belize's Permanent representative to the UN?

I'll think of some more.

It stinks, but then money and politics always does, no matter what colour...

[i].....clearly he mislead not only the parliament but also his own party and the public at large.....[/i]

So what's new in politics 🙄

I agree with Stoner's remark on "faux outrage" - what is the scandal here, a rich successful capitalist uses the system (of which we all enjoy some benefit) to become even richer and more successful !

To be honest it doesn't worry me a fig and I'm sure it will have exactly zero impact on my day-to-day life......

He said he would be domiciled ... in the UK

and pay tax in the UK

You still havent furnished us with a source or link to illustrate your shouty belief that he proimised to pay tax on all his international income in prior to sitting in the Lords.

Mefty - as I have told you already there is no point in me spending time searching sources as it is clear you will never be satisfied. Its all out there in the public domain.

Stoner - he, Hague and Cameron all clearly intended us to believe he was ordinarily domiciled here and was paying full UK tax. Not that he was non dom status.

This is where the deceit lies.

Check the various statements over the decade this has been brewing and the reluctance to come clean.

FAIL

Ashcroft admits he has non-dom staus, on what grounds was it granted?

How can a British citizen who claims to be a permanent resident have this status?

[i]Essentially, non-domiciled individuals, or ‘non-doms,’ are resident in the UK but have strong affiliations with another country where they were either born or their parents were born.[/i]

When did he become a non-dom?
[i]Blind Rudolph[/i]

Why has it taken so long to confirm his status?
[i]To avoid a ruckus. Oh look overhere, there's a ruckus! 😉 [/i]

Did "callmedave" know about Ashcrofts status?
[i]well d'uh! 🙄 [/i]

Is the firms that channels Ashcroft's money really British?
[i]Now thats the question. But Id be very surprised if his accountants/lawyers would drop the ball on that one. [/i]

Will he relinquish his non-dom status
[i]In his latest statement he said that if laws were brought in banning non-doms from sitting in the Lords then he would relinquish the status[/i]

How can a member of the House of Lords be Belize's Permanent representative to the UN?
[i]He quit the UN role when he went up to the Lords[/i]

Wasn't this all settled in 1936?

Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax

Stoner - he, Hague and Cameron all clearly intended us to believe he was ordinarily domiciled here and was paying full UK tax.

No.
All those on the left were hoping that he would be publicly outed as a non-dom so they could let rip an anti-patriotic, tax-dodging rant when they managed to force the public disclosure of his private tax status. Everyone knew perfectly bloody well he was a non-dom. The faux outrage goes with the squeals of delight from the left for forcing it out in the open.

Mefty - as I have told you already there is no point in me spending time searching sources as it is clear you will never be satisfied. Its all out there in the public domain.

I think there's [b]every[/b] point in your trotting off and putting a bit of effort into trying to find a statement from either Lord Aschroft or the Party that his intention was always to relinquish his non-dom status before sitting in the Lords: because you wont find one. And you just constantly repeating that it's true without any evidence still isnt cutting it.

[i]In his latest statement he said that if laws were brought in banning non-doms from sitting in the Lords then he would relinquish the status[/i]

Hmmmm, how long will "callmedave" take to change the law here if he becomes PM, do we think?

Bearwood...That's where the bodies (if there are any) are going to be dug up...If the Electoral commission decide it's not trading in the UK, then the Cons have to give the money back...

Actually, is it any different to what this blokes been doing for the past thirty years TJ?

I don't see you calling for him to be expelled from your local ruling party, and who gave him a knighthood? Oh, yeah, your mate Tony...

[img] [/img]

Cranberry I have not said that tax avoidance was illegal I know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
I have questioned the morality though of someone influencing the election here and being a high ranking member of a political party when they do not actually live here or pay all/the majority of their tax here. I would prefer my politicians, whatever their hue, to actually live in this country and pay all their tax here.
It is off course illegal for a foreign national to give money to parties hence why he used his comapny to do this

No what he actually said was he would become a permanent resident but managed to somehow get permanent resident defined as long term residentof the UK.
He has agreed to take up permanent residence AGAIN but in the sense we all assume it means- live and pay tax in the UK as Dave will make him.

are resident in the UK but have strong affiliations with another country where they were either born or their parents were born

Exactly my objection he essentially claims his first affinity is to another country but wants to influence the result here. Surely treason ❓ to either us or Belize take your pick 😆

Junkyard,want to bet that move will never appear if Dave does not win the election.

TJ - So in other words you can't. You don't exactly wield the sword of truth more the dirk of a backstabber.

Stoner - get a grip - of course he intended to mislead. I have been following this since 2000 and it is very clear.

You are so partisan and blind that you will not see it. Its been clear for a decade that we were supposed to believe he was ordinarily domiciled in the UK and that he paid full UK taxes

Loads and loads of statements that while maybe allowing him wriggle room were clearly intended to make us believe he would not be a non dom and that is why he was so reluctant to let it out he was a non dom.

Google finds you loads of examples quoted in the Tory press as well

For example

Lord Ashcroft disclosed that he negotiated the previously unknown deal within months of telling William Hague, then the Tory leader, that he would take up permanent residence in the UK. At the time Mr Hague said that the decision would “benefit the Treasury tens of millions a year in tax”.

There can be no misunderstanding about the context of Lord Ashcroft’s promise. His memoirs are dominated by his frustration at being blocked for a peerage because he was a “tax exile”. [b]The natural and ordinary meaning of his memorandum is that he was coming home to pay taxes.[/b] It is odd that he has now come clean.

i think you lot all owe TJ an apology

What you tory bois cannot admit is the deceit - and attacking labour scores you no points with me.

Yes labour and SNP have non doms bankrolling them - pretty dirty but non of them were deceitful in the way Ashcroft was

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/03/ashcroft-affair-what-papers-say.html

Duckman I am not even sure he will do it if the Tories win let alone if they dont. He will probably just redefine permanent resident to just visiting for 5 years.

EDIT: yes some of the other non doms are not that pleasant either Sean "Spain " Connory [spell] being a great example. It is a n odd thing for a democracy that we allow foreign nationals to fund our political parties and own our press. It is surely possible that these peoples agenda may not be in our countires best interest? Murdoch? Ashcroft etc certainly they will not have to live with the consequences as they can just go home

kimbers - Member

i think you lot all owe TJ an apology

I doubt I'll be getting one.

anyone who is not blinded by right wing ideology can clearly see the deceit - its in all the papers from right to left. Telegraph to mirror.

TJ - you crack on and on about deceit....

[b]Did he actually lie[/b], [u]yes or no answer?[/u]

not at all kimbers.

TJ those are editorials written today.

Apart from possibly the reference: [i]"At the time Mr Hague said that the decision would “benefit the Treasury tens of millions a year in tax”. "[/i] and whether it might be misconstrued as being of such a scale to represent his international income or whether his domestic income could give the treasury such sums. There's nothing in either of those articles to illustrate his intention to relinquish his non dom and so pay tax on his international income rather [b]than just his UK income[/b] which would be the effect of his promised change in residency.

Just as you have they are simply jumping on a bandwagon and inferring a committment that was never given. Its not right wing ideology over here TJ, it's a respect for the facts.

Did he intend to mislead? The telegraph and the times clearly believe he did even if he used weasel words.

Stoner - how can you believe that after those quotes?

Again TJ - Did he actually lie, yes or no answer?

Z-11 did he intend to mislead - yes or no?

TJ which quotes? As far as I can see the only one that might indicate a substantial income to the treasury from what might be more than his UK earnings is the one I put in my text and that is far from evidence of a committment to become domiciled for tax.

Have you got other quotes that indicate either Ashcroft or someone in the Party committed him to paying tax on [b]all[/b] his income? All the other quotes I can see in those editorials are hearsay from other commentators.

Anywhere I think we're now at the impasse where I'm not going to change my stance unless you can produce some factual evidence (and you wont be able to) and you will continue to maintain that Im blinkered because I wont hang a man for inferences made by others.

We can probably leave this one now.

Junkyard - Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear....

Thats the game, the very nature of politics, all politicians are guilty of it.

The question is, and must remain, did he [b]lie[/b]?

^ post of the show.

*claps*

to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear

Im using that one day 😉

Stoner - If all the papers including the times and telegraph and many in his own party believe he misled and intentionally so then thats good enough for me.

He may have left wriggle room so he cannot be called on a direct lie but it is clear that he intended everyone to think he was domiciled in the UK for tax purposes and infact he never was.

Re read the editorial in the times I linked to

There can be no misunderstanding about the context of Lord Ashcroft’s promise. His memoirs are dominated by his frustration at being blocked for a peerage because he was a “tax exile”. [b]The natural and ordinary meaning of his memorandum is that he was coming home to pay taxes. [/b]It is odd that he has now come clean.

Have you started drinking the meths earlier today ratty?

All he has said is that he would abide by the terms of the undertaking that he gave, the undertaking itself was confidential. And he and the Tories generally kept to this line, whilst this may not have been enlightening it is certainly not misleading. Hague's comment could be right, no idea I would need to know more about Ashcroft's tax position, I would be surprised if he did not have sources of UK income. It also could be wrong, can't judge, insufficient evidence.

As far as the columnist's views, he seems to slag off Ashcroft for adopting a legal interpretation of a legal document. Well what does he expect? His understanding of the technicalities of the law are pretty much summed up by his definition of a non-dom as an international jet setter.

Stoner/Junkyard -

TJ - once again - Did he actually lie, yes or no answer?

Zulu - to which I reply did he intend to deceive? Did he "obfusticate" anbd attempt to hinder the information commissioners investigation?

He may have a lawyers escape in twisting the meaning of his words but it is clear to anyone with half a brain that he intended the country at large to believe he was ordinarily UK resident and paying full UK tax.

So he certainly intentionally mislead - an actual lie? it depends on meanings you ascribe to certain words. IMO Yes he did

Ian Munro - Member
Watched Channel 4 Dispatches this evening?
I think you should post your views about it over here
http://forum.mpacuk.org/forumdisplay.php?f=18

Nahhh ... they can keep to themselves or go away as I aint going to have a debate with them.

😀

TJ i think you will find he was ordinarily resident but again that is not domicile.

TJ, Politicans mislead, its the nature of the beast - Its like complaining that your pet killer whale has just eaten someone, what do you expect?

If you choose to uncritically not read between the lines of anything said by any politician of any party, and expect it to reflect accurately his or her position, then you're either naive or a fool - I actually don't think you're the latter, probably not the former, so I surmise that you're whipping yourself up in false indignation at something that you already knew to be the position.

He told the truth, accurately and clinically, if you were mislead by that, then the only person who misled you was yourself!

You've got a right to complain when a politician lies - the fact that he's supposedly managed to mislead all these people and the press by telling the truth shows he's a bloody good politician, just the sort we want running the country - indeed, the fact that he's a multi millionaire, knows how to run profitable businesses and keep it also shows he's just the sort we want running the country - not like the bunch of recalcitrant Trotskyites you'd thrust upon us that know only how run around like a bunch of latter day highwaymen spending the money they have stolen off the rest of us!

z11 you want your politicians to be as deceitful as possible?

It might be good if we did - then we could say that they're performing brilliantly 😉

Ahhhh, Zulu, it was all going so well, right up to the last sentence...

He told the truth, accurately and clinically, if you were mislead by that, then the only person who misled you was yourself!

the fact that he's supposedly managed to mislead all these people and the press by telling the truth shows he's a bloody good politician, just the sort we want running the country - indeed, the fact that he's a multi millionaire, knows how to run profitable businesses and keep it also shows he's just the sort we want running the country

genius, so glad my views are very far from yours and so sad that people such as yourself get to vote. Oh well C'est la vie

Whether or not he lied, his intent was clearly to deceive. Whether he lied or not isn't relevant in the slightest to me, his conduct is unfit for a member of the House of Lords. To me, he can donate what he likes, be resident where he wants, but he should not be a Lord- he gained the position by deceit, and that lack of integrity marks him as unfit.

That said, I'd be amazed if he's the least honest Lord.

anagallis_arvensis

Democracy really is a shitter isn't it?

So, what political party do you support?

is it perhaps the magical mystical one that tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth all the time, and gets all its money from the banking fairies that grow money trees? and who know what the public want and need better than the public itself does...

In the words of the film: "you want the truth? you can't handle the truth!"

When you grow up and emerge from your lefty cocoon, you'll realise than national governments don't have power - multinational corporations, oil magnates and the Bilderbergers have the power, national governments are merely PR exercises to keep the proletariat working and consuming!

Some people on here appear believe that the Lord Ashcroft affair is some sort of 'non-story'. Indeed Stoner suggests that TJ's outrage is simply [i]"the pure ranting of the jealous left"[/i] and that he is [i]"upset simply because he's bank rolling the tory machine"[/i]

And yet ....... all the serious newspapers in Britain have treated the Lord Ashcroft tax affair as a very important story. In fact every single one, including the Financial Times, felt it was [i]so important[/i], that they placed it on the front page.

Some even felt compelled to write leader comments on the story :

[i]Lord Ashcroft is not just any old political donor. As deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, he has become a significant public figure. His tax status is thus a matter of legitimate public interest. [u]His behaviour in concealing it should be a matter of public concern[/u].

Despite this prominence, Lord Ashcroft has long appeared to consider himself the victim of a media witch-hunt, which forms an unreasonable intrusion into his private and business life. This has always been a childish conceit. Since he became the Conservative deputy chairman in 2007, it has been an absurd one. If Lord Ashcroft wishes his life to be entirely private, he should not have made himself a public figure of great influence. Most pertinently, [u]he gave very public assurances about aspects of his life as a condition of entering the House of Lords[/u] in 2000.

For the past ten years, the peer has treated inquiries about his tax status as a game, to be played with a smirk...........even now, Lord Ashcroft keeps the same smirking tone. In finally admitting his non-dom status, he does not say, directly, that it will soon change.

Wilfully, or because he simply cannot help himself, he continues to give the impression of holding not only regular British taxpayers but also his own colleagues in contempt.[/i]

That was from today's editorial in The Times. Tomorrow's Times will have another editorial which claims :

[i]In order to become a peer in 2000, Lord Ashcroft gave certain assurances to Parliament, this newspaper and the Conservative Party. As any reasonable person would now have to concede, [u]these assurances have not been met[/u].

This newspaper is not alone in having laboured under the misapprehension that a permanent, tax-paying residency was Lord Ashcroft’s intention. His own party would appear to have been under this impression too.

The most damaging charge that can be levelled at Mr Cameron’s Tories is that they are not as other people, and do not live by everyday rules.

For the most part, the electorate cares little about the finer detail of commitments given by shadowy peers. They do care about their politicians following the same standards that they do.

With an election mere weeks away, even Lord Ashcroft must realise that he has served his party as much as he can. [u]Mr Cameron should thank him for this service, and ask him to return to the private life[/u] that he so clearly craves.[/i]

So The Times is apparently sufficiently outraged by the Ashcroft affair, to call for the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party to be sacked.

I bet Rupert Murdoch will be surprised when he is informed that the leader writers of his newspaper engage in [i]"the pure ranting of the jealous left"[/i]

😕

ah.here you are, gus. pissed now (me, not you, natch).
will deal with you tomorrow. hic and kisses,
stoner

Nicely put Ernie.

*Doffs cap*

Those trying to undermine my position as Treasurer
– and in the process harming my business interests on both sides
of the Atlantic – were The Times, one of Britain’s oldest and most
influential newspapers, and the Labour Government, led by Tony
Blair and his cronies.

"In order to become a peer in 2000, Lord Ashcroft gave certain assurances to Parliament, this newspaper and the Conservative Party. As any reasonable person would now have to concede, these assurances have not been met."

I agree with the Times. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH

Errnie/TJ... anyone

Tell me, if I was a US domicile that ran a million dollar profit business in New York, Another million dollar profit business in Los Angeles, and an entirely separate 1.5 million pound profit business business in London - where would you say it was fair for me to pay taxes on the profits of the UK only business?

i) To the US treasury
ii) To Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
iii) To both

I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get with you
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that butt you got makes me so horny
Ooh, Rump-o'-smooth-skin
You say you wanna get in my Benz?
Well, use me, use me
'Cause you ain't that average groupie
I've seen them dancin'
To hell with romancin'
She's sweat, wet,
Got it goin' like a turbo 'Vette
I'm tired of magazines
Sayin' flat butts are the thing
Take the average black man and ask him that
She gotta pack much back
So, fellas! (Yeah!) Fellas! (Yeah!)
Has your girlfriend got the butt? (Hell yeah!)
Tell 'em to shake it! (Shake it!) Shake it! (Shake it!)
Shake that healthy butt!
Baby got back!

(LA face with Oakland booty)
Baby got back!

[Sir Mix-a-Lot]
I like 'em round, and big
And when I'm throwin' a gig
I just can't help myself, I'm actin' like an animal
Now here's my scandal
I wanna get you home
And ugh, double-up, ugh, ugh
I ain't talkin' bout Playboy
'Cause silicone parts are made for toys
I want 'em real thick and juicy
So find that juicy double
Mix-a-Lot's in trouble
Beggin' for a piece of that bubble
So I'm lookin' at rock videos
Knock-kneeded bimbos walkin' like hoes
You can have them bimbos
I'll keep my women like Flo Jo
A word to the thick soul sisters, I wanna get with ya
I won't cuss or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna ******
Till the break of dawn
Baby got it goin' on
A lot of simps won't like this song
'Cause them punks like to hit it and quit it
And I'd rather stay and play
'Cause I'm long, and I'm strong
And I'm down to get the friction on
So, ladies! {Yeah!} Ladies! {Yeah}
If you wanna roll in my Mercedes {Yeah!}
Then turn around! Stick it out!
Even white boys got to shout
Baby got back!

Baby got back!
Yeah, baby ... when it comes to females, Cosmo ain't got nothin'
to do with my selection. 36-24-36? Ha ha, only if she's 5'3".

[Sir Mix-a-Lot]
So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, playin' workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda
My anaconda don't want none
Unless you've got buns, hun
You can do side bends or sit-ups,
But please don't lose that butt
Some brothers wanna play that "hard" role
And tell you that the butt ain't gold
So they toss it and leave it
And I pull up quick to retrieve it
So Cosmo says you're fat
Well I ain't down with that!
'Cause your waist is small and your curves are kickin'
And I'm thinkin' bout stickin'
To the beanpole dames in the magazines:
You ain't it, Miss Thing!
Give me a sister, I can't resist her
Red beans and rice didn't miss her
Some knucklehead tried to dis
'Cause his girls are on my list
He had game but he chose to hit 'em
And I pull up quick to get wit 'em
So ladies, if the butt is round,
And you want a triple X throw down,
Dial 1-900-MIXALOT
And kick them nasty thoughts
Baby got back!

End of thread.

So, shall we talk about the Labour Non-Dom donors now? Or, should we talk about Tony Blair's tax and residency status instead?

New thread, maybe? "More Labour lies?"

His autobiography also details his intention to have his ashes scattered in Belize. Choice of burial plot is an important indicator of domicile and would be one the reasons be why he can be permanently resident here as he agreed to be and domiciled elsewhere.

"So, shall we talk about the Labour Non-Dom donors now?"

If any of them have secured a place in the house of lords by deceit, then by all means do so. As much as some people might like to muddy the issue this isn't simply about being a non-dom donor.

.....Rupert Murdoch will not be too surprised, wouldn't want to shock him at his time of life.

I think that Rupert might be a tad surprised that his leader writers engage in [i]the pure rantings of the jealous left.[/i]

But of course it would appear that [i]none[/i] of serious papers have a lot of time for Lord Ashcroft's shady shenanigans. The leader comment from that arch Tory paper, the Telegraph :

[i] Lord Ashcroft has always defended his coyness over his tax affairs by insisting on his right to privacy. Given that he is a public figure – not only a peer of the realm but also the deputy chairman of the Conservatives, the party's biggest single donor and one of the architects of its general election strategy – that right must surely be somewhat circumscribed.

Even so, it seems to have taken an imminent Freedom of Information disclosure about his tax status to persuade him to do something that he should sensibly have done a decade ago and reveal his non-dom status. Voters are understandably suspicious of wealthy, unelected figures who are politically powerful, and the best way to allay such doubts is through transparency............he should have come clean much sooner. [/i]

Not many newspapers appear to share Lord Ashcroft's demand for privacy. Or have the 'jealous left' infiltrated the Telegraph too ?

Northwind, shall we talk about Mandelson then? Nice honest member of the upper chamber. Erm.

As northwind says - the issue all along is not the non dom status nor where he pays tax nor the bankrolling of the party [i]but the deceit[/i].

Attack labour by all means for stuff they have done - or other parties as well.

You will not alter the fact that one of the most senior tories has been caught misleading the country deliberately and Cameron is left with a huge amount of egg on his face having been made a party to the deceit

Just wait until the investigation into the donation route is finished. Thats a really murky pool that the tories are desperately hoping they can filibuster until after the election.