Labour's pursuit of Ashcroft could backfire

Sally Chatterjee

Like the bullying story, this might excite people in Westminster but it surely won't get traction outside the bubble.

Dorothy Wilson

No apologies for repeating a post I made late last night:

“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.

Irene

Coming from a twice discredited Lord I thought Mandleson looked rediculous this morning - he said that the Conservatives were trying to buy the election - which is an insult to voters who have a mind of their own.

THX1138

Read Gove in The Times on Ashcroft http://is.gd/9vY01 Best argument against him I have read so far.

“Surely a party determined to make patriotism and tax its salient issues would not have as its paymaster a man, like Michael Ashcroft , who was Ambassador for one foreign country and and a tax exile in another?”

“Mr Hague certainly has a well-developed sense of humour …You certainly do not emerge strengthened as an opponent of cronyism by expending what credibility you have acting as the paid lobbyist for your own title-hungry Treasurer”.

Ashcroft “enjoys no check on his arrogance … Why wasn’t the Conservative Party capable of seeing how much trouble reliance on this one man would cause?”

On claims that objections to Ashcroft’s peerage were xenophobic: “You won’t make me a lord? Is it cos I is Caribbean?”

General Zod

This is atrocious hypocrisy and the Tories need to be out there saying so.

Time to call for Mandelson to account for his purchase of the Regent's Park house now, I think.

welshy

This story is really going nowhere (despite the BBC's initial best efforts at not mentioning paul, mittal etc) because:

a) Lord Paul (labour equivalent) has just been appointed Privy Councillor
b) Labour have had 12 years to change the rules on this
c) If it really drags on, cash for honours etc can be fired back at them.
d) Union cash has funded labour for years.

This is one of the few thing the public actually understand pretty well (unlike the state of economy and rumblings in fx markets) from a 5live phone in (usually left leaning) I heard yesterday.

Also I would argue that it is good for the country that brown is currently not getting on with the job. I have not heard him say anything beyond stuff reactive to cameron for weeks - the press need to get back on his case - let's have a decent policy debate please if the polls really are that narrow.

strapworld

Dorothy Wilson has given the evidence for Cameron and Boy george to demand answers to the obvious questions raised.

I bet they will do nothing though!

Alexander

What do you expect from Mandleson!? He can't help himself.

Still I wish I had his ability to go from a Geofrey Robinson home loan and a false statement on a mortgage application to a multimillion pound townhouse in Regents Park - while on the public payroll. What a talented man!

TrevorsDen

Labour donor Lord Paul is fiddled 38k's worth of expenses. He has cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands in expenses.

Lord Ashcroft has claimed zero.

toco

Mandelson has had to resign twice from the Cabinet in disgrace and major non-dom Labour donors have failed to tell us about their tax affairs.Ashcroft has not broken the law and indeed founded Crimestoppers and funded educational establishments like the South Bank College in Putney.When has Mandelson ever put his hand in his own pocket to contribute to the wellbeing of mankind?All he can do is vent bile like the other Labour spin doctors such as Gordon Brown's good friend the disgraced Damian McBride.Shameful.

Things Can Only Get Better

Hague wrote to Blair in 2000 that Lord Ashcroft's new status would mean that he would be paying millions of pounds each year to HM Treasury. After yesterday we now know that for the last 10 years that was clearly not the case.

So 2 questions remain for the Leader of the Opposition (Hague/IDS/Howard/Cameron) to answer;
What did they know about Lord Ashcroft's "arrangement" post-2000? , and
When did they know it?

Chris

"Sure, it's hardly ideal that someone with such influence in our politics hasn't been paying UK taxes on much of his wealth (something which could equally be said of Labour donors like Lord Paul and Lakshmi Mittal)"

Influence?! Neither of those Labour Donors are Vice-Chairs or accompany Gordon Brown on his trips abroad. Ashcroft isn't just about donations.

Percy

Mandleson with his lovely house, swanky suits and a wristwatch that cost the average UK salary, all on public sector wages? Stop faffing about and get stuck in you media pussies.

GoodbyeGordon

This would be the Peter Mandelson who was a bit forgetful with his mortgage application a few years ago. To be fair forgetting about a private loan of nearly £200,000 is something the average person might easily do but would nevertheless face charges for fraud. But as we know from the expenses scandal, politicians do not need to trouble themselves with rules.

GoodbyeGordon

This would be the Peter Mandelson who was a bit forgetful with his mortgage application a few years ago. To be fair forgetting about a private loan of nearly £200,000 is something the average person might easily do but would nevertheless face charges for fraud. But as we know from the expenses scandal, politicians do not need to trouble themselves with rules.

Jonathan Hall

I’ve got to say, Labour have played a blinder with this non-story, ably supported by some appalling Tory media management. When is Central Office going to get a grip?

Presumably the Tories knew that Lord Ashcroft was going to publish this statement on Monday. So why didn’t they prepare and hand-out a media dossier on Labour and the Lib-Dem’s non-doms at the same time? Instead, the counter-attack only started in the afternoon, but by then it was too late. Thanks to the BBC, Ashcroft had become the main news-story of the day….. The Tories need to be pre-emptive not reactive, and there is no point in us whinging on about BBC bias. It’s a fact of live that we’ll just have to learn to live with while we are in opposition, but that means we must stop negative news story from gaining traction in the first place. We won’t get a fair hearing there-after - a good performance on Newsnight, [Grove was good] is pointless if the Tories have been second best for the previous 8hrs. Our media team need to be quicker and more street wise. Alan Johnson’s intervention for instance, could and should have been turned on its head…. Tory spokesmen on the radio/TV should have asked if Johnson was using Cameron as a smokescreen to question Brown’s patriotism. After all, like Cameron, Brown has accepted donations from a Non-Dom. See Benedict Brogan’s blog for an illustration of how this could have been done http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/benedictbrogan/

Furthermore, why is it only today – 24hrs after the story broke – that we are learning about Ashcroft’s multi-million pound donations to Crime stoppers, and other British charities? This should have been on the Tory crib sheet from the start. Ditto details about Ashcroft not claiming a penny in parliamentary expenses, unlike Lord Paul, etc….

We should have been prepared for this onslaught, but clearly we weren’t – this is the question DC should be addressing and he needs to fix this problem, fast.

Nigel T Packer

Peter Mandelson has a cheek to comment on Lord Ashcroft and say

‘All these years he's been dodging what he should have paid in tax in full’

Didn't I read that he arranged his tax affairs with HMRC and Labour in 2001/2

Would Mandelson’s own tax status and payments stand up to the same scrutiny?

You have to be very carful when throwing stones in a glass house!

Andy Carpark

My recollection is that Mandelson bought his Notting Hill home in 1996 with a loan from Geoffrey Robinson, who was in turn a beneficiary of a trust created by a Mme Joska Bourgeois.

In March 1998, possibly in reaction to criticisms of Robinson, the capital gains tax charge on trust distributions was extended to those created by non-domiciles.

Mandelson and Robinson both resigned in December of the same year, Mandelson on account of the home-loan itself, Robinson as tit-for-tat for the forced exit of the Brownite, Charlie Whelan.

Simon Stephenson

"Sure, it's hardly ideal that someone with such influence in our politics hasn't been paying UK taxes on much of his wealth ... and was keeping mysterious about it."

Hardly ideal? I should say so.

What grounds are there for us believing that Ashcroft's infiltration into the centre of UK politics was not fundamentally about preserving the non-dom anomaly whereby he, as a UK resident, could choose to have the vast proportion of his income exempt from UK tax? And why should we believe that as a quid quo pro for his millions in donations, the Conservative party hasn't agreed an understanding with him that the non-dom question will be, as far as they are concerned, forever on the back-burner?

"But at least, now, most of the uncertainty surrounding Ashcroft's position has been removed."

Don't you think this is in some ways worse? Sure, the uncertainty has been removed, but what has been brought to light is that Ashcroft and the Conservative party have for 10 years allowed a large section of the population to labour under the misapprehension, derived from their earlier statements, that Ashcroft was a fully-paid-up member of the United Kingdom.

"And we have his indication that he will become a full UK taxpayer in due course."

We had this indication 10 years ago, and what good did that do?

It's not that Ashcroft and the Conservatives have done anything illegal, nor that they have broken any rules, but trust and faith are necessarily dependent upon more than just adherence to the rules. In this case they have participated in a long and deliberate deception, and, to me at least, this diminishes the level of trust that can be placed in them.

Tiberius

It is odd to see Labour barking so loud over this, not because of the hypocrisy (which we expect), but because of the obvious level of it. I have little faith in our voters to see the nose in front of their face, but I can't see Labour bring able to make political capital out of this.

As others have commented, Crick and Wark were truly appalling on Newsnight over this, with 20 minutes being devoted to a story that was clearly censored away from the Labour offenders. Michael Gove was excellent, but the BBC News really is crawling in the gutter with coverage of that kind.

Ed B

I am a Conservative supporter and, from my partisan perspective I think that Ashcroft has given wonderful support to the party both in financial and organisational terms. Also, he has done good things for the country; his work in setting up Crimestoppers and donating his VC collection to the nation spring to mind.

However, notwithstanding the above, the Ashcroft saga doesn't look good. Also, to state the obvious, Labour would be well advised not to throw stones as they too are in a glass house.

Surely the long term solution is to limit all political donations to 50,000 per annum per individual donor (this includes corporate donations and, yes, unions).

denis cooper

Couldn't this increasingly ridiculous spat be settled if Mandelson and Osborne got together on a yacht somewhere, and thrashed it out over dinner?

After all, they could well end up being colleagues in a national government, if we had a political class with enough patriotism to follow the first of Willem Buiter's suggestions:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d58ada72-256a-11df-9cdb-00144feab49a.html

"A commitment now to a three-party government of national unity could stabilise matters immediately. Failing that, all three parties could agree the size of post-election tightening now, with only the mix of tax rises and spending cuts to be decided after the election. I am not holding my breath."

Or are they more interested in party political slanging matches than doing what is best for the country?

Don't anyone bother to answer that question.

2trueblue

Tiberius, the BBC are not even out of the gutter. They are Liebores and we pay for it.

The Tories are not getting the airtime. They should be knocking on the cv vompanies doors and get their point acoss. Thereare quite a few Liebore peers that are not domicile and hold very hich positions.

Gary Williams

Unless and until commentators from the Peanut Gallery, including some above, know how much Ashcroft actually has paid to HMRC in tax, and how much he actually has paid to other jurisdictions that would be offset against any UK domiciliary tax liability, I would suggest that they STFU.

strapworld

When Mandleson, Johnson, now Simon Stephenson and THX1138 can match Lord Ashcroft with his contributions to the betterment of the British people, I will listen to their rubbish.

It is obvious, with the increase in traffic of names/identities never noticed before that the Labour Party are going to use the internet to try and influence our minds.

With such childish comments coming from them they may as well save their money. As for mandleson, who should have been imprisoned for his fraud on the building society-as we would have been!- that individual has a record which can be easily attacked. I have never taken the fool seriously. He is a legend in his own mind.

I believe 'What goes around comes around' sums him up and I cannot wait until, as it certainly will, comes around for him big time. That fall will be watched and appreciated by millions.

No state funeral for him!

michael m

Perhaps people should also be reminded that not so long ago Tony Blair was interviewed by the Police in the Buy a Peerage Scandal. And of course Lord Mandelson also is no angel

TrevorsDen

Why do lefties and anti Cameron UKIPphiles not mention the 16 million donated by Sainsbury who became a lord and a govt minister for his troubles? i wonder.

TrevorsDen

BTW - according to The Times the £ fell 1.7% against the Zimbabwean Dollar ....

And what is Lord mandelson (et al) doing meanwhile?

Victor Southern

All this could have been dealt with years ago and forgotten about. Ashcroft had no need to let it drag on and fester.

However, all the wild claims about tax evasion are nonsense. Nobody except his accountant and the HMRC know how much he has paid in UK tax. It could be substantial - certainly more than is paid by Lord Paul.

What is more he does not fiddle his expenses for attending the Lords - he claims none at all. He does not have mythical homes in hotel rooms that he owns nor, like a certain Baroness, in an empty flat in Maidstone.

It is beyond belief that Peter Mandelson has any credibility at all but it would be interesting to find out whether he paid UK tax on his earnings as an EU Commissioner.

Frank P

At least the money doled out by Ashcroft to the Tories will find its way into British economy - what goes around come around. WGAS where the political parties get their campaign funds as long as long as they don't sting the taxpayers for their ludicrous canvassing and propagation/prumulgation of their bullshit? Mandelshit's denunciation of Ashcroft on TV today was about as risible as if he had suggested that Machiavelli was duplicitous.

Frank P

Hope there's no back-firing where Mandelson is connected.

Gawain

And meanwhile back in the real world the £ continues its slow decline into a crisis. Perhaps this explains the vigorous barking from Labour.

the shade of dr kelly

can the tories not put in a FOI request for documentation sent to and from blair during the mandelson/robinson loan-gate situation?

perhaps they could also put in an FOI request on any mentions of mandelson's tax contributions whilst in europe and perhaps how he can afford the house/lifestyle he enjoys on a public servant's salary.

golfwidow

The backfire has started. Sky reporting a Tory FOI request regarding Lord Paul's appointment to the Privy Council.

Alex

When will Labour pay back to the taxpayer the full sum spent on the trade union modernisation fund over the last ten years?

The taxpayer funds the unions and then the unions fund the Labour Party. A very cosy arrangement. You may even say taxpayer-funded politics, for ONE party!

I bet Lord Mandelson won't address that issue in a hurry. I hope a Cameron-led government (of one or two parties) abolishes this slush fund.

THX1138

strapworld The "rubbish" that I quoted was written in 'The Times" by the Tories Shadow Education Sec and close friend of David Cameron Micheal Gove

2trueblue

Wait for the next poll, and see what effect it has on the £.
Liebore have the airwaves and until that is evened out the Tories are in a pretty difficult place.

Kevin Davis

All very well having silly posters but if you have not got the money to plaster them anywhere then what is the point!!?

London Calling

So Lord Ashcroft is the Tories cash-cow? I don’t have a problem with that as long as no dirty money is filtering through from the proceeds of opium crops. However it is inevitable that the bigger the cow the more demand there is for greener grass in return and a pasture with a view…

Whilst smutty accusations fly back and forth to fill the gaps between the real issues demanding our attention, it is the corruption of our political system by darker forces as expressed in last night’s channel four programme Dispatches, about the rise of Islamism in the borough of Tower Hamlets in London which is soaking up powerful positions within the council to overthrow Democracy using Democracy and that is the real monster in the room and should be the wake up call that the Government has so far slept through and what the Muslim community in Tower Hamlets are being used for without full knowledge….

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-54/episode-1

Richard

Just for all those who do not understand the reason this is such a big issue...

Ashcroft was refused Peerage by the electoral commision of the House of Lords. reason his tax status.
William Hague offers to get M Ashcroft to make an undertaking to correct his status to PERMANENT RESIDENT (pay tax on all earnings at home and abroad)
Ashcroft agrees and undertakes to complete this within one year...(remember this is 1999)
2000 Ascroft is made a peer.
10 years on noone could confirm if he ever complied with that undertaking WH and DC both obfiscated the questions according to the commisions report.
Yesterday he admits he is a LONG TERM RESIDENT (Non Domicile pays tax only on UK earnings)
His defence of why he did not take PERMANENT RESIDENT is he nogotiated the fall back position of LONG TERM RESIDENT which was accepted by the Tory party in 2000.
The problem comes thus:.......
The arrangement to be a LONG TERM RESIDENT was only introduced in 2008.
So for 8 years he either lied to WH and the Tories or he had a crystal ball that meant he could negotiate and agree to something that would only be available in 8 years time.

To accept that Hague, Howard and Cameron did not know the real status of Lord Ashcroft is absurd.....thus they perpetuated the lie and misled us and the parliment by way of not doing anything about it and turning a blind eye. They were forced to this point by a FOI request.....anyone remember expenses saga?
This is why its a problem and can come back to haunt them for a very long time.
I know for a fact there are Queens Councils looking at this and clearing their diaries right now.
So dream on if you think this is a dead horse......and dont even bother with the Lord Paul argument its not in the same ball park.

Ghillie

And what about Labour's neat transformation of taxes into party funding - thus:

- We pay taxes to government.
- Government pays Union Modernisation Fund about £10m per year.
- Union Modernisation Fund pays unions £10M per year.
- Unions donate £8-10M per year to Labour party funds.

There's a name for this and Dot Cotton is an expert at it!!

Why aren't you or the MSM highlighting it?

AAE

welshy mentions Union funding for Labour, and in addition, why aren't the Torys shouting about the disparity of "investment" between Labour and Tory constituencies? Or asking why hundreds of millions raised in council tax in Tory counties is redistributed to the socialist enclaves (70% of wage packets in Newcastle belong to public servants)? Or, if they could be persuaded to descend from their oh so elevated position into the bear pit of reality, they might like to remind everyone of Labour's record of electoral fraud. But, they won't fight and so don't deserve a victory.

Marcher Baron

For Mandleson to claim that the Conservatives were trying to buy the election is very rich, considering that for 13 years Labour has been importing large numbers of potential voters (remember Neather?), employing a raft of Turkeys that won't vote for Christmas in the public sector, not to mention creating and breeding a dependent sub-class welded to State benefits. I seem to recall IFAW and LACS Ltd donated a million pounds to Labour so we got the immensely straightforward and workable (ahem!) Hunting Act. Mind you, Bernie Ecclestone was the most astute - he got his money back AND he kept his advertising!

Chris, Birmingham

Ashcroft has in effect professionalised the tory election machine incentivising success, business plans etc. He has supported charities (crimestoppers, help for heroes), british life (vc medal exhibition) and sport (Watford FC). He seems to have an interest in a competitve centre right party.

All these people who point out he has funded the tories for 10 years actually undermine their own argument - he can hardly be after buying influence if he is funding an OPPOSITION party for in effect the entire time they have been in opposition. It shows that they are shallow and only dislike him because he is being sucessful against them.

This is all leaving open goals to attack Labour.

Non-doms can buy privilege under Labour (Lord Paul)

Non Doms can influence policy under Labour (Sir Ronald Cohen) PFI, (Mittal) Carbon Trading (Ecclestone) Advertising.

Hedge funds can buy tax exemption (Dougherty)

Fraudsters can avoid proscution and become Lords (Mandelson)

Non doms can buy a peerage (Gulam Noon)

You can also add to that cash for access and real dodgy donations - ie anonymising donations.

I just dont see how someone who has made obvious their support for a party in the wilderness can be said to have undue influence.

David Ossitt

Andy Carpark

“My recollection is that Mandelson bought his Notting Hill home in 1996 with a loan from Geoffrey Robinson”

Your recollect only that which was quite legal, the loan from Robinson, you forget or have omitted that which was in effect a crime, he applied for and was granted a mortgage, one of the questions on a mortgage application, asks a question about other loans.

Madelson lied denying the Robinson loan, that was the crime.

bernerlap

I don't believe the Media at times. The attack on Lord A going nowhere but it is drawing attention from the state of the £ - which is currently tanking against the $ and the Euro.

THX1138

The Tory Poster fightback begins:

http://mydavidcameron.com/posters/ashcroft3

Don't Belize the hype

Ghengis

brown put mandelson where he is.

Frank P

denis cooper

The thought of those three groups of f*****g wasters/wankers conspiring to screw the rest of us with no opposition in sight would be the Crime of the the Century - in fact of any Century. I'd go down fighting to stop that notion - believe me, using as a last resort my Zimmer frame as a battering ram. Stop raising such spectres, denis - the Sun is shining today.

Gary Williams

Richard,

"Permanent residency" is normally considered to be the same as "Indefinite Leave to Remain", and does not equate to being a domiciliary for tax purposes.
Therefore one could simultaneously be a non-dom and a "permanent resident".
This may change for some UK citizens, after a Court of Appeal ruling that was made only a fortnight ago: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7029806.ece

welshy

Richard... I do not disagree with anything you have written but we are weeks away from an election, there is simply no time for any of your points to play out properly. And my points can be used to close argument down near term. Like I said - the public have a view that "they're all at it" so do not see this swinging it.

People are worried about jobs, savings... ashcroft as an issue is just not going to stick in a material way in my view. Stood at the box - the choice is still 5 more years of brown - that is the bottom line. They all lie, all abused expenses and are influenced by cash donors (left and right) - so can we just move on as one man's tax status should really not be in the top 10 factors in people voting at a General Election for heaven's sake...

Richard

@Chris

"I just dont see how someone who has made obvious their support for a party in the wilderness can be said to have undue influence"

You really dont understand politics do you?
Do you think lobby groups only lobby the government ministers?
In or out of Gov anyone who has a vote on legislation in susceptable to influence.

2trueblue

Richard, I am not sure what you personally understand. We have the most corrupt parliament which your beloved Liebore presided over, and illegal war, cash for peerages,.... The list is endless. Go back to the BBC blog, you will be far happier there.

christopher Meyer

A few years ago, Lord Paul invited my wife and me to a party to celebrate his son's engagement. It was held in the splendour of Lancaster House. The guest of honour was Gordon Brown, who made a speech. At the time I was Ambassador in Washington and had been assiduously courted by the Pauls. But once I published my memoir, DC Confidential, which was mildly critical of some New Labour figures, Paul dropped us like a hot brick, resigning as Honorary Chair of my wife's children's charity.

David Ossitt

Richard

“@Chris

“You really dont [sic} understand politics do you?”

What a bloody liberty.

PS. Dick they are not typo’s, they are evidence of ignorance.

Hugo van Randwyck

Most people have other worries, like jobs and paying the bills, these are the issues that matter.
The public has seen all three parties with their snouts in the trough, so Ashcroft could be from any party, all parties are rotten.
What are people's other concerns: Europe, population rising, law and order, health, British troops in war zones, also in England a desire for an English Parliament. This is why people are voting for newer parties.
If the three political parties in the UK rely on big donors, and in America they can get people to donate $5 or $10 a go, then this tells you about the lack of interest/trust by the public in politicians.
The government has £170 billion of borrowed money to spend, and the Conservatives said - to people with mortgages - that they will implement spending cuts if elected. Hardly a recipe for swing voters.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Christopher Meyer

Come come, you surely wouldn't expect the slightest hint of loyalty? What possible use were you or your charming lady wife to the noble Lord Paul after your retirement from your illustrious service in Washington?

But the Son also rises.

Richard

@David Ossitt

PS. Dick they are not typo’s, they are evidence of ignorance.

Oh dear you seem a tad too picky.
Is that Typo (') s and in belonging to?
or plural......just asking!
The ignorance is yours......you don't even know if English is my first language, do you?

Richard

@David Ossett,

You really dont [sic} understand politics do you?”

If you use a square bracket to start insertion should you not use one to finish?

Just asking!

Richard

@ Gary again...sorry mate not picking on you honest.

Unless and until commentators from the Peanut Gallery, including some above, know how much Ashcroft actually has paid to HMRC in tax, and how much he actually has paid to other jurisdictions that would be offset against any UK domiciliary tax liability, I would suggest that they STFU.

Ashcroft has a 30 year total exemption from tax in Belieze much to the annoyance of the prime minister of that country.

David Ossitt

Richard

“@David Ossett,[sic]

You really dont [sic} understand politics do you?”

If you use a square bracket to start insertion should you not use one to finish?
Just asking!”

You have caught me out.

“The ignorance is yours......you don't even know if English is my first language, do you?”

Richard ignorance is lack of knowledge, for me not to know if English is your first language or not, is merely the lack of information.

Gary Williams

Richard,

Am not sure what you mean by "again"; I don't believe you've replied or referred to me before. It doesn't matter anyhow.
I hear what you're saying about Belize, but it appears that Ashcroft has had substantial business interests in the US, at least. The IRS would not have much cared about his Belize status when it came to the taxation of his US activities. In some income categories, the US tax rates would have been higher than the counterpart UK rates.
It's possible that the guy has paid not a farthing to HMRC, but we don't know that. Until we do or, more important, until the authorities do, our arm-flapping is irrelevant.
In the meantime, as I wrote above, it appears that he could readily have been a "permanent resident" and a non-dom at the same time. If "Indefinite Leave to Remain" is effectively the same as "permanent resident", then there are thousands who for many years (since pre-'00) have been UK "permanent residents" whilst being domiciled elsewhere.

Chris, Birmingham

Richard - not sure if you will post again but nevertheless how many votes / issues over 13 years of Labour Government have required opposition votes to be passed?

It seems to me you dont understand how politics works. Money follows success as some seek to influence and some seek association with that success.

This is why Ashcroft seems to be such an anomoly - I read somewhere a description that he was a 'foul-weather friend'. Do you disagree with any of the substantive points about Labour hypocrisy?

Richard

@David Ossitt,

Thanks for using my correct name and in return I promise not to spell your surname wrongly..(It was deliberate but you did presume to call me Dick and Little Dick so you got what you deserved)
I notice you single me out for the insult of being ignorant (lacking knowledge) well we all learn something new everyday.
Have a good day and enjoy your posting.

Dorothy Wilson

Richard:

Lord Ashcroft has not pulled strings with No 10 to prevent a change to the tax status of private equity funds. Lord Ashcroft has not pulled strings with No 10 to have those funds exempt from the tax on bonuses applied to the banks.

Apparently, certain Labour donors have done just that.

Richard

@Gary
It does seem from the letters published today that Lord Ashcroft gave an undertaking that was to promise to be more than be a perm res (using an indefinite leave to stay status which still makes him liable for full tax by the way). His claim in his press release said he was registered under a term not available at the time he claimed.
He is in serious trouble now and he will be spending a few millions on lawyers here which should help the poor HMRC out a bit.

Gary Williams

Dorothy,

That's not to mention the travesty of "carried interest", which in the last 13 years has saved those people hundreds of millions in tax!

robert hagan

Don't kid yourself about its backfiring on Labour. This story is doing serious damage to the Tories and is unfolding by the day

Richard

@David Ossitt

Ignorance is behaving in a manner where you fall below the levels of polite society.

Attack the post not the poster.

Remember to assist those less enlightened when ever you can with your greater knowledge.....there! Now that should make you feel all warm and cuddly inside now...I hope. Enjoy your posting and have a nice day.

Gary Williams

Richard,

Until national politicians - starting with our moralistic PM - voluntarily take their gross personal income and give HMRC a flat 40% of it, with no deductions, exemptions, or other actions to reduce the payment to the legal minimum legal, I cannot see what the problem is with Ashcroft's (or Paul's) paying what they actually owe, rather than what their political opponents would like to see them pay.
For goodness sake, this is the same country in which a Member of Parliament need not have ever lived in the constituency that he or she "represents". No politician who has condoned such a nonsense is entitled to criticise Ashcroft for insufficient commitment to the polity.

I appreciate that you are trying to keep this civil (as I am), so this is not a shot at you, but your assertion that Indefinite Leave to Remain would have obliged Ashcroft since 2000 to pay the same personal income tax as a UK domiciliary would have done is categorically wrong.
The whole point of non-dom status is that those persons residing in UK, but intending to return to another jurisdiction at an undetermined future date, are NOT obliged to pay UK income tax on their non-UK income, nor are their estates' non-UK assets taxable by HMRC.

Cheers.