More on Ashcroft

David

"But there is no denying that Lord Ashcroft’s tax status is an growing embarrassment."

Only if you keep turning it into an issue. He doesn't influence policy, so it's an irrelevant concern. It would be far more interesting to look at the people Guido has just highlighted who gave Broon money for his leadership campaign and then got some nice perks afterwards.

TrevorsDen

Never mind all this - The US Congress has just voted against the bail out. They are trying to get it changed some how - but if its back to the drawing board --- well where does that leave HBOS?

Will Lloyds TSB shareholders vote for the merger? If not - where will that leave Brown and Darling.

The wood Brown out of is not yet. My guess is the loos in Downing St are blocked up with bricks right now.

Never mind Ashcroft never mind Miliband's Hesletine moment. Is Brown heading for a Black Wednesday moment?

TGF UKIP

Fraser, why ever do you help them make this issue run. The answer you and your best mate Dave should be giving is "Fuck off and ask Gordon about "Sir" Ronnie Cohen, the Smith Institute and the rest. Then when you've done that come back and I might answer some questions about Lord A."

Craig Strachan

So what if he is a non-dom? Gordon Brown turned over the management of Northern Rock to a non dom. (Lucky guy!) There's a lot more British taxpayer's money at stake there than in the Tory party organization.

Lord Elvis of Paisley

Sorry, but I have to say this is a classic case of political anoraks living in the blogosphere bubble. If there is anyone out there who thinks this issue is going to register any interest whatsoever with the general public, then quite plainly you are one of those anoraks. What the general voting public are interested in is paying their bills and wondering how to pay their next fuel bill. This is not on their radar, but Osborne's council tax freeze will be.

Val

But David, how do we know he doesn't influence policy?

or indeed all those other donors - hedgefund millionaires downwards - how do we know none of them influence Tory policy?

Doesn't it stink for Cameron and Osborne to take big cheques from these guys and them let take part in private policy discussions round the dinner table?

And the No 10 Club? My god, I thought the Conservatives weren't being triumphalistic. The hubris!!

James H

That documentary was unbelievably feeble. Cameron's recorded speech was only played three time (calling for greater transparency) and totally out of context (ie in relation to party funding, rather than the expenses issue Cameron was actually talking about). If that is the best that labourite wannabe muck-slingers can sling, then the conservatives can breathe easy. Yes, Ascroft's situation is politically awkward, as is Lord Rothemere's, but it is not illegal. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? That entire documentary was based on inference and implication, and a slavishly one-sided view of hedge funds and short-selling. Amusing in its childishness.

One question though- what on EARTH were you involved in it for Fraser?!

Chuck Unsworth

Brown flogs off major national assets to non-doms - and you say that 'for kicks' Ashcroft helps Tories win seats.

Where's your evidence for 'for kicks'? Is that what he's told you? Or is this confirmation of your own position, then?

And frankly Dispatches revealed more than you might hope - notably the sheer incompetence of the 'investigatory' reporters. ("I was told I had applied too late for a ticket" etc - Good Grief, professional or what?)

And "David Cameron has refused to appear on this program"? Why the hell should he? How utterly moronic. Who do these 'journalists' think they are?

My advice to anyone approached by journalists is this: Think very carefully exactly what you hope to gain from the encounter - and then tell the journo to take a funny walk.

CS

***One question though- what on EARTH were you involved in it for Fraser?!***

Any chance to appear on telly opinionising. He's hoping to be the next Michael Portillo, or Diane Abbott.

strapworld

Lord Elvis of Paisley is quite correct. The people I speak to are only to pleased that someone with the money that Lord Ashcroft has is backing the Tories is GREAT news. This campaign by the BBC/SKY/Channel FOUR is rather worrying is it not.

They ignore the Labour Party and all their corrupt practices and just concentrate on trying to undermine the Tories.

Look at Brown's infantile comment on who can be a prime minister. Just what knowledge did he have. Did Blair have? did Thatcher Have? etc etc etc. It was so bloody juvenile.

The tonight Cameron was taken around to meet up with five different people in the Birmingham area by the BBC man from Venus, Robinson.

My son, who was watching with me, commented that Cameron came across as a really nice bloke, and that was the assessment of all the five!! BUT, BUT. BUT Robinson tried his best to imply that ALL would not support him.

I think that will prove to be groundless.

There is a campaign, which I worry about, a concerted campaign to undermine the Tories and MR Nelson, sadly you are aiding and abetting it by giving credence to this ridiculous story.

WHAT ABOUT THE LABOUR CONORS POLICE ENQUIRY - WHO is sitting on that????

Martin Cox

There seems to be no mention in this stream about the support of Trades Unions for the Labour Party in the marginals to which Lord Ashcroft contributes.
Have the Unions actually asked their members, many of whom probably say they will now vote Conservative, whether they agree that their funds should support Labour?

Tiberius

I think there should be a realization that we don't want Fraser or this blog to be unquestioning cheerleaders of the Tories.

A bit of rough on here might actually provide some immunization against the inevitable smear campaign that will accompany the GE hustings. We've all seen how the BBC, Sky News and even ITN show bias against the Tories for threatening to upset their cosy deal with New Labour. And they will be fighting to the death in 2010.

Cogito Ergosum

Melissa Kite raised the A. issue some time back in the Telegraph. She, er, no longer works for the Telegraph.

Mind your back, Fraser.

Nick Kaplan

I don’t understand why there is so much fuss about individuals or groups being able to influence political parties. I understand that it would be completely inappropriate for this to happen when a party is in government; however when a party is in opposition or when the ruling party is writing its next manifesto why does it matter if individuals or unions pay for stuff to go in it?

Surely all that matters is that these policies are made clear to the electorate and the electorate get to vote on them before they become government enforced policy.

As far as I’m concerned if I like a policy I could not care any less whether it came from a party member, think tank, bureaucrat, trade union, rich businessman or former convict. Surely what matters is the content not the origin of policy, if you agree vote for it, if not don’t....simple... Can someone explain all the fuss to me?

oldtimer

Fraser, you are over egging this pudding. It is also beside the point. The issues that matter are:
1 the real risk of financial meltdown and what the politicians can do about it - answer not very much;
2 the impact this will have on the Brown v Cameron election prospects - possible answer good for Brown in short term but bad for him in medium to longer term.
3 At the micro level, will the Osborne council tax ploy ring a bell with the electorate? Answer in normal times probably a clever wheeze but in todays environment it proably will be buried under the avalanche of the collapsing credit and stock markets.

Please get back onto subjects that matter.

stereoviewer

I am a huge fan of the Spectator's Coffee House section but a lot of your contributors only seem to believe in the idea of free debate when it bashes Labour. The noble thing about the Coffee House section is that it encourages intelligent debate but die hard Conservatives complaining about raising an issue damaging to the party makes a mockery of this.

James H

stereoviewer-

Do you believe free debate on the issue would make it go away? Er, no. If Cameron can't get it sorted, it's not going to happen. So why risk damage to the conservatives for no good reason, especially when, and this is the critical point I think you have missed commenters refer to, there are plenty of far bigger issues to be worrying about?