The Ashcroft issue has to be resolved
James Forsyth 6:03pmThe general consensus here is that the Osborne speech did the business: yet another hurdle has been cleared by the Tories. However, folk here are buzzing about tonight's Dispatches programme on Tory funding. To my mind, the issue is not whether short sellers are donating to the Tories, but Lord Ashcroft's tax status. It is a huge strategic liability--and one that a half competent Labour party would exploit--that the Tories cannot say whether one of their vice-chairmen and major donors is domiciled in this country for tax purposes.
I know CoffeeHousers get irritated when the Aschroft issue is raised. But it is reckless for the Tories to let this issue fester precisely because of the good that they could do for the country. In the same vein, the shadow cabinet should give up their second jobs which hand Labour an unnecessary weapon. It is wrong that any shadow cabinet member should have a second job which overlaps with their brief, creating - at the very least - the appearance of a conflict of interest.
The Tories should deal with these issues before they come to the public's attention, as they surely will during an election campaign. It would be complacent - the cardinal Tory sin at the moment - to leave Labour any open goals.
Previous
Comments
James B
September 29th, 2008 6:17pmWhy bring this up and do Labour's job for them? If I want to read silly nonsense about Tory donors, I'll log onto the New Statesman's site.
Who cares whether Lord Ashcroft is domiciled in this country for tax purposes? There's no suggestion he's having any influence on party policy - unlike the brothers in the trade unions bankrolling Labour and being given carte blanche to decide policy in return.
Let's remember who the enemy is.
Guido Fawkes
September 29th, 2008 6:22pmLegally he is in the clear. politicaly it is awkward.
GS London
September 29th, 2008 6:34pmJames B -
It is for the Media to police the politicians, just as Guido does for the left, and perhaps the Guardian does for the right. It is in the interests of the politicians in the long term that the media reflects the edgy feeling of the people.
It should be written about, to promote action, regardless of who one's allies are.
TrevorsDen
September 29th, 2008 6:58pm"Legally he is in the clear" - not like like say Abrahms then.
If labour choose to cast the first stone (never mind the LibDems with all their donor problems) then they are laying themselves open to a barrage of rocks back.
Neil
September 29th, 2008 7:10pmCan we please confirm whether you and the media at large are questioning Ashcroft's domicile or tax residency status?
The two are very different and have vastly distinct consequences.
It would help if the media at large actually understood our tax system.
Mark
September 29th, 2008 7:29pmAshcroft promised he would change his tax status when he was appointed to the House of Lords. What's wrong with asking whether he kept that promise?
If it was a Labour peer, somehow I don't think Conservative supporters would be saying, 'Broke the promise he made to get in to the Lords? Oh so what, doesn't matter.'
TGF UKIP
September 29th, 2008 7:30pmJames, my answer to Fraser's post on Ashcroft holds good for you as well.
The Labour barrel has even more potentially rotten apples than the Tory one, the difference is though in the willingness and the ability of Labour to make something of it. Tories fight by LTA Rules, Labour fight by Toxteth Rules.
Chris
September 29th, 2008 7:33pmGood job Guido's policing the left, rather than telling lies about Caroline Spelman, eh, GS?
AlanofEngland
September 29th, 2008 8:17pmAnd Toxteth rules are? Presumably the same as Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, London, Bristol.....yadayadayada
Thortung
September 30th, 2008 4:07amHas labour paid the Abrahams illegal "donations by proxy" back yet? If not, why isn't this being shouted from the rafters and charges being brought?
reuben
September 30th, 2008 7:07amThis message board would make an excellent sitcom.
GS London
September 30th, 2008 8:52amChris -
I wasn't under the impression Guido had ever deliberately lied - he'd be open to libel. In the case of Caroline Spelman, it was up to the public to decide whether parliamentary expenses covered childcare.
The story Guido ran was perhaps phrased somewhat aggressively, but this is a tool used by all media in order to attract readers. Nevertheless, Guido did say the expenses covered a Nanny; not exactly cocaine and prostitutes is it?
Oddly, this isn't intended as a defence of Guido (though by coincidence it has become one).
I'm certain if your terms are broad enough then 'lies' can be found in all sectors of media: the frequent occurrence of nameless ministers briefing against each other in parliamentary sketches is in my mind enough to raise an eyebrow, phrases like "a minister [who isn't named] told me that Brown has to go..." typifies political columns.
Quite from weakening my point concerning 'policing,' I believe in this rarefied context benefits from the clouds of vicious rumour: if nothing else to keep politicians on their toes. Further, it is in the interests of the various media to report stories and rumours which perhaps contravene their personal or corporate beliefs - the appearance of un-bias is considerably easier to achieve than actual un-bias - just observe the BBC.
So, in a weird way, thanks for proving me correct.