[Closed] More Tory Lies?

shall we talk about Mandelson then?

Oh go on then.

But maybe on a different thread ?

After all...........you wouldn't want to gloss over dodgy Tory peers, now would you ?

Yes, because obviously he's a non-dom donor to the labour party? No? Ah.

Totally agree with the Telegraph's analysis, it would have been better if he had disclosed it earlier - he choose not to as was his right. My guess having perused his autobigraphy is he enjoys p1ssing people he disagrees with off, not edifying but not deceitful. (Therefore the Times is probably right when it says he has a smirk on his face.)

Mandelson - nasty little shite of the slimiest type.
Are we agreed? Fine. Thats that dealt with then.

I doubt you will find anyone to defend him unlike the queues of toryboys trying to defend Ashcroft ( and failing miserably) ( actually Mefty has done a decent job of playing a very poor hand)

Totally agree with the Telegraph's analysis, it would have been better if he had disclosed it earlier - he choose not to as was his right.

Apparently you [i]don't[/i] agree with the Telegraph's analysis.

From the Telegraph's leader comment : [i]"........that right must surely be somewhat circumscribed."[/i]

Ive always rather liked mandelson. He's the best politician out there.

so neeer 😛

He's the best politician out there.

Ah, it's all starting to make sense now Stoner...........Mandelson has [u]twice[/u] been forced to resign due to dodgy financial dealings. You admire politicians with 'dodgy financial dealings' ! Therefore you've rallied to Lord Ashcroft's defence 😀

.

Or do you admire Lord Mandelson cause he's the poshest toff in the Labour Party ? .........maybe it's a bit of both - eh ? 💡

EL - I do agree with the DT, they don't think he should have had an unhindered right to privacy, fine I think they are right - but that doesn't mean he didn't have such a right.

Lots of posh Labour members, Quentin Davies, the Dunwoody daughter etc. Mandelson does have the best title though.

Some interesting stuff coming out in Wednesday's Guardian about Ashcroft's supposed agreement to pay tax as a domiciled citizen in order to become a peer. Apparently includes a letter from William Hague stating these were the conditions agreed for his peerage.

Some good stuff there indeed philby

He mentioned the "solemn and binding" undertaking Ashcroft made in 2000 to Hague to become a "permanent resident" of the UK that year and Ashcroft's unsubstantiated claim that the government later confirmed this could mean he became a "long-term" resident.

"However, this cannot be the condition he was required to meet in 2000," Mandelson wrote, "because the 'long-term resident' rule was only introduced in April 2008 – eight years after he made his promise."

In a letter to the prime minister, dated 22 March 2000, the chairman of the scrutiny committee, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said it required "firm evidence of an unequivocal decision by Mr Ashcroft that he will have taken up residence in the UK on a permanent basis" before it could recommend his appointment.

The letter said the issue of his tax residence "seems central" and could be resolved only by "an assurance about such an irrevocable decision, carrying with it messages about availability and status as a UK taxpayer"

Tee hee - it gets better and better - copy and paste rebuttal are appearing on blogs all over the net in one of the clumsiest actions I have ever seen.

Oh they must be bricking it at central office

Junkyard,sorry to change the subject,but you have been tannoyed by the "I'd like to punch the pope thread"

I'd love to vote Conservative at the next election. I can't stand New Labour, and I can never work out what (if anything) the LibDems stand for. I've even been known to help out a friend with canvassing for Conservative councillors.

But it looks to me like, once you get past the weasel words, that this man has indulged in deliberate deception in order to get his place in the House of Lords. And it reflects very badly on people like William Hague and David Cameron. It calls into question their judgment, which for a politician is everything.

What a piece of work he is.

Lord Ashcroft casts a long shadow on the next general election. According to the information released by the Electoral Commission, he has donated over £5m to the Conservative party and its associations. A large proportion of this money is targeted at marginal seats in order to swing the election for the Conservatives. The donations have been made by Bearwood Corporate Services, a UK-registered company ultimately controlled by Lord Ashcroft. However, the company has been making losses for years. Its most recent accounts for the year to 30 September 2008 show that the company had an accumulated loss of £3,928,665.

Ordinary folk make political donations out of income already taxed in the UK. But Bearwood did not have sufficient income to cover political donations. Most of the cash donated to the Conservative party has therefore come from Lord Ashcroft's operations in Belize

From the guardian. This is why Bearwood is being investigated. A preliminary investigation showed a case to answer and the full investigation is ongoing. Ashcroft and the tory party are doing their best to block the investigation but on the surface this is clear illegality. Either bearwood is a shell company for laundering donations or it has undeclared or untaxed income.

The letters do not really shed any further light on this. I dealt with Hague’s letter previously as to the rest.

The Lords Committee wanted him to give a solemn undertaking that he would take up permanent residence in the UK. He gave such an undertaking and claims that he abided by it while retaining his non domiciliary status. You may think that is not possible because it is a perversion of common use of language but it is. For instance, if someone, such as Ashcroft, maintains a wish to be buried, or have their ashes scattered in the other country, and continues to maintain strong ties with that country, albeit while not being resident there, it is highly likely he would retain that domicile. That is the law, it may pervert common usage but that is nothing new.

The Guardian suggests that non dom status is equivalent to being a tax exile, that is just as much perversion of common usage, an exile to me is someone who lives abroad, Ashcroft does not anymore so how can he be an exile?

Mandelson is just trying to bamboozle which he is quite good at, while the term “long term resident” became a defined term in tax legislation in April 2008, it does not mean it had no meaning previously. In the absence of a statutory definition, it should simply be interpreted in line with common usage (i.e. unperverted by the law.).

For a donation to be legal, it needs to be from a UK resident company carrying on a business in the UK, there is no requirement for it to be profit making. Nothing illegal there either.

Finally, would it be unreasonable of Lord Ashcroft to question why he should be subject to more onerous demands than other working peers such as Lords Paul and Cohen?

Slight error, I inadvertantely appointed Sir Ron Cohen to House of Lords. The point stands.

Come off it Mefty!

Its clear that Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the rest of the comittee intended that he would be resident, domiciled and paying full UK tax - go read the letters on the guardian website.

You are getting less and less plausible.

Hague talked of tens of millions of pounds tax a year so he obviously intended it to be believed that Ashcroft would be resident, domiciled and a UK taxpayer.

I did read the Guardian letters. The term domicile was never used, if that is what they intended surely they should have written it? Or were they mindful that it would be unfair to make more onerous demands on Ashcroft than other working peers?

As far as Hague's comment is concerned I dealt with that on page 5, as follows:

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.

>You are getting less and less plausible.

Whereas you started out completely implausible and are hoping for a late comeback ? 🙂

Come on mefty - you are still arguing semantics when the meaning of the undertaking was clear to everyone including Hague and the committee the pledge was made to as being fully resident in the UK including for tax purposes.

Isn't it entirely typical of New labour to appoint Mendelson to go after Ashcroft, just about the only politician most people would trust even less with billions than Ashcroft....

I'm no expert on tax law but seeing as Ashcroft instead of paying taxes in this country decided to spend the money funding the Conservative party, doesn't that mean we've been paying for it? Surely that means we get to have a say about what's in the campaign? We could have giant posters all over Westminster "Non domicile tax cheats...It's time to close in" Or just entertain everyone by getting Wolves to chase Michael Howard through a wood

You may believe that, but unfortunately you can't find any factual evidence to support that view. When such evidence is requested you just post comment and supposition. I personally need a lot more before flinging round allegations of deceit.

Mefty - if the fact that all the papers editorial writers and the lords committee chairman believed that and clearly Hague did from the comment about tens of millions of pounds in tax it is disingenuous for you to pretend it is not true.

You can huff and puff as much as you like but there isn't any evidence to back it up. It must be very frustrating, the Guardian has let you down, just put a helmet on before you bang your head against the wall.

["However, the company has been making losses for years. Its most recent accounts for the year to 30 September 2008 show that the company had an accumulated loss of £3,928,665."]

Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd is small enough not to give full accounts discloser so does not give turnover, gross profit or net profit. According to Bearwoods published accounts, that £3.9 million is not a loss but a negative P&L reserve. Given the limited information in the accounts you could assume that this is then an accumulated loss. However the this figure includes the interesting term "other appropriations".

Interesting set of accounts, I note that they do not list the companies activities.

Mefty - how can you deny what is so clear? [b] Direct quotes from the people involved [/b]that prove that Ashcroft mislead intentionally the public, the press and his own party.

" there is none so blind"

Lady Thomson recalled that the fast-moving events interrupted a visit to Cyprus she was making with her husband.

She told Channel 4 News: "The Ashcroft saga had been rumbling on. The call came from the British consul in Nicosia that he had got to see my husband in confidence. A place was arranged - at a crossroads with a cafe.

"We made our way to the cafe. George and the consul had a private talk and looked at the documents and made their decision. I think they imposed restrictions. When they read the documents they were destroyed at once. They had been flushed down the convenience."

She added: "[b]I know George was rather furious afterwards. He felt he had been promised a certain code of behaviour and that had not worked out.[/b] I would say that George felt this was not a suitable man to be a peer."

From the telegraph - this is the widow of the chair of the committee.

As David Cameron tried in vain to draw a line under the affair yesterday, senior Tories expressed surprise at the revelations of Lord Ashcroft’s non-dom status. One said that the peer, who has helped to organise and bankroll the Conservatives’ election campaign, [b]had used “smoke and mirrors over a long period of time”.[/b] Another said that previous party leaders had adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach.

Sir Hayden Phillips, a former senior civil servant who gave the peerage its final approval, told The Times that he had not offered official blessing for him to avoid taxes on his foreign income.

Both from the times.

Plenty more if you want it.

Shall we look at the documents and try and divine their intent rather than rely on hearsay, innuendo and off the record quotes. (Ashcroft like anyone involved in politics will have enemies on all sides, until he dies that is)

From the Appointment Committee's letter

More specifically, therefore, we considered the issue of residence, as this seems central to the exercise of responsibilities as a Working Peer.

So they don't want him living elsewhere when he is supposed to be working here.

From the same letter

We hope you will agree to invite Mr Hague to let us have firm evidence of an unequivocal decision by Mr Ashcroft that he will have taken up residence in the UK, on a permanent basis.

Which he gave and complied with, so he could carry out his responsibilities as a working peer.

One final quote:

I am sure Ashcroft will have had a far better understanding of the meaning of the undertaking than whoever dealt with it from the other side and therefore will have complied with it. However, it is quite likely that the wording will not achieve what was hoped. In this case, whilst the government's fault through incompetence, some mud will stick because he will have complied with the letter rather than spirit of the undertaking.

That was me, seems to sum it up quite nicely, although on reflection I don't see why Ashcroft should have had more onerous requirements placed on him than Lord Paul (and I believe others). No deceit, no lying.

Balderdash piffle and poppycock.

Clear evidence of deceit and lying and more to come. Direct quotes from principal players in this including Hagues that shows he was duped as well.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.................

Other than Hague's letter which I have dealt with, the only principal player quoted is Sir Hayden Phillips who said

Sir Hayden Phillips, a former senior civil servant who gave the peerage its final approval, told The Times that he had not offered official blessing for him to avoid taxes on his foreign income.

Well, I would not expect Senior Civil Servants to give official blessing to avoid taxes. It is a complete non quote.

Lord Thomson's wife was not a principal player, but it seems he couldn't find a reason to stop the appointment perhaps because he like yourself struggles to find any evidence despite the resources of the Guardian and the Times.

TJ, may I call you "wolfie?" 🙂

The story is not in the payment or none payment of tax or what status Mr Ashcroft is for tax liability. Why not look at his donation and the company is comes from. Someone on here has already covered part of this but in my view the real point is being missed. Ashcroft has done nothing illegal as far as his tax payment is concerned, though some people are desperate to prove or smear otherwise. What exactly is the status of the company that donates the cash? What is the company for? Does the donation come from it's trading profit? The assetts jumped from £4m to £20m, why was that and were are those assetts?
Though I'm not suggesting anything illegal I do believe in the "spirit of the law" as guide to what is the right thing to do, if not then all the money grabing MP's have done nothing wrong.

Thats my 2p anyway.

Mt - absolutely agreed. However until the investigation is complete we have little to go on.

However you also miss the point - its not about his donations or tax status its about the clear deceit. he said clearly he would do one thing, did not do so and spent a decade attempting to avoid being found out until the information commissioner forced him to out himself

mt - The company is UK incorporated. There is no requirement in the law for the donation to come from trading profit, a "permissable donor" is in relation to a company

a company—
(i)registered under the [1985 c. 6.] Companies Act 1985 or the [S.I. 1986/1032 (N.I. 6).] Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and
(ii)incorporated within the United Kingdom or another member State,which carries on business in the United Kingdom;

So as long as it is incorporated here and it carries on a business - this isn't a particular difficult test to meet (no requirement to carry on a business with a view to profit)- it is within the rules. I must admit to being staggered at the naivety of the drafting, it really is appalling and whoever was responsible for it is completely incompetent. However, I digress, I think the chances of Ashcroft being outside these rules is minute.

On the subject of spirit verus letter, in a utopian world I would agree with you, unfortunately the state has huge powers which are often abused by its servants. I think it is a bit rich for it to expect higher standards from its citizens.

mefty - Member

"On the subject of spirit verus letter, in a utopian world I would agree with you, unfortunately the state has huge powers which are often abused by its servants. I think it is a bit rich for it to expect higher standards from its citizens."

Is there a problem with asking for people to go with "spirit over letter"?
After all politicians are trying to win our trust. Whiter than white as Tony lying Blair once said. Utopia may be impossible but striving for it has got to be our aim, no?
Does that mean that you regard Ashcroft as a citizen?

mt - I think the genie is out of the bottle. The problem we have is that we have highly complex and detailed legislation in a lot of areas, it is expensive to comply with and lays down loads of hoops for you to jump through. Once you have got through them, is it reasonable to expect people to them endeavour to work out what the intention was. I think not, there is a cost to all this law and its demands on the citizens has to stop somewhere. If we had a simpler system then I think your expectation would be more reasonable.

I would personally prefer, a smaller state producing less but better law.

However, I don't think it is utopian to expect higher standards from our legislators. I think Ashcroft could probably argue he is within the spirit of the donation rules because he is resident here and the rules are designed to stop people who live abroad donating to political parties. But he is not going to bother, because eventually the story will lose its momentum.

As far as the undertaking is concerned, I see this more equivalent to a negotiated contract where I don't think it is reasonable to expect a "spirit" interpretation as the precise terms have been heavily negotiated.