Ashcroft in the clear?

logdon

Now will the Guardian, BBC and Independent devote as much energy pursuing Lord Paul, Lashmi Mittal and co?

Richard

It's not over yet!
This is not a clean bill of health.
If anything this will focus even more attention and more hacks will be asigned to this saga. Be prepared for more articles in the press.
This story has nearly lasted a week in the media spotlight......every news report is damaging the troy campaign. As we all know every answer raises three questions.
Shameron and vague cannot hide from the media for much longer they must surface soon.

Scary Biscuits

Was there ever any specific suggestion of wrongdoing, other than smears?

The MSM should hang its collective head in shame over this one. The BBC, for example, had Ashcoft has this as their lead news story for two days running - and it broke on a day when the pound was in 'virtual free fall' according to an article tucked away inside the Telegraph. Wow, how Fleet Street's priorities have changed. They blame the declining circulations on the internet/disillusion with politics/etc but the real reason is they've stopped writing what people want to read. Who wants to buy from lazy, gutter journalists who just cut-n-paste from people like McBride?

TrevorsDen

The BBC's Westminster correspondent was having visible on air orgasmic convulsions about this story last night - he was clearly expecting a much different outcome.

Alex creel

As expected the Beeb are towing the party line and have turned 'World at 1' into 'Ashford bashing at 1'. Martha Kearney's repeated attempts to heap sh*t on the hapless lord are tedious and an embarassment. Journalist my a**e!

steve

I would rather read some stories about cocaine abuse than this :)

luke

The reporting of the Ashcroft story on this blog has become incredibly one-sided. I assume this is just because there is an election approaching..

What do you make of Turnbull's comments as reported in the Times? He is hardly a Brown stooge!

Verityred

Harpic and co can bleat on all they like. She should be at home licking her wounds after her appalling performance at PMQs yesterday.

Oh and finishing off grooming her union hubby for his nice MP to be role.

strapworld

I do hope Lord Ashcroft gets his lawyers to look into every remark made by politicians and journalists to see if there is any case for slander/libel actions.

Would it not be absolutely glorious to see the BBC/ SKY and certain newspapers and all the journalists and politicians having to make public apologies and make donations to a charity of Lord Ashcroft's choosing.

What I find quite awful is the lack of any statement from the Conservatives making it quite plain what a patriot Lord Ashcroft is. What good works he has done and is doing for the British people. Total silence.

Almost left out to dry. And I just could not and cannot understand just what Hague was up to last night. He is not one for making statements like that without thought.

The tories should be ashamed of themselves. They should have closed ranks but they did not.

oldtimer

...or colleagues such as Mr Mann MP, on World at One, being offered first shot at continuing to smear and misrepresent. It sounded quite bad until the Electoral Commission Chairwoman was allowed to say that the investigation had been thorough, detailed and gave both Bearwood and the Conservatives a clean bill of health.

It is obvious that the Labour campaign is all about smear and innuendo. It is just as well, courtesy Guido Fawkes, that McBride was outed last year otherwise his intended smears, lies and innuendo would also have been all over the media by now.

Given the thrust of Labour`s ad hominem political campaigning, has Brown missed the boat by not yet calling for an earlier election? Or does it mean that we can expect more of the same so that public attention is drawn away from the dire economic circumstances faced by the nation?

Pete Hoskin

luke: certainly not trying to be one-sided. I have no reason to change my tone in the run-up to election. In which case, a few observations:

1) Coffee House (including yours truly) has consistently called for the Tories and Ashcroft to come clean over his tax status.

2) Now that they have, my position is that it's better than them not coming clean - and it's A Good Thing that Lord Ashcroft is offering reassurances about becoming a full UK taxpayer.

3) This does not mean that I do not have concerns about big money and the role it plays in British politics.

4) The Electoral Commission did clear Ashcroft and the Tories over that £5.1 million worth of donations. I was reporting that in the post above. I think this fact will take some (not all) of the political poison out of the situation.

5) There are, as I say, questions remaining. The biggest of these is whether Hague was naive or simply incompetent in not knowing about Ashcroft's tax status until "a few months ago".

6) My blog post about this backfiring on Labour was not meant to deflect from the Ashcroft story per se. It was just an observation - related to Mandelson, Lord Paul, etc.

7) But I still think there's a lot of hypocrisy from all sides on this.

That is all.

AndyinBrum

Not if I can help it VR

General Zod

I think Richard may have called off CH-monitoring duties to help try to put together a strategy to keep the Ashcroft story going.

denis cooper

Anyway, the good news is that this kind of thing would be sorted out if Cameron became Prime Minister.

Having accepted huge amounts of money from a single donor to help get Tory candidates elected and get himself into Downing Street, he would then make sure that no other party would ever again be able to do the same thing.

And nor would any smaller political competitor - the Referendum Party previously, UKIP now - ever again be able to rely on money from just one wealthy man, or even from just a few wealthy men.

Because that's "undemocratic"; while it's far more democratic for the oligopoly of three main parties to use their established positions and their incumbency to fund themselves with taxpayers' money, and crush any new entrants into the political market place - with the assistance of a supposedly "independent" Electoral Commission.

This is from a party which claims to believe in:

a) A small state and low taxation, with people being allowed to keep as much of their own money as possible;

b) Personal freedom, not least the freedom for people to spend their money as they choose;

c) The benefits of free and undistorted competition.

d) The rule of law.

Richard

@General Zod
This story is not still running becaise of me.....you give me too much credit (blush)
Any story that runs for week is serious.
This situation is of the tories own making and now the questions of morality and credibility will have to be asked and answered I stiil believe a head will be offered up and it needs to done quickly.
Shameron will suffer serious loss of face and will have to come out of hiding soon.
Where is he anyone seen him lately?

Any Colour but Brown

"strapworld
Almost left out to dry. And I just could not and cannot understand just what Hague was up to last night. He is not one for making statements like that without thought.

The tories should be ashamed of themselves. They should have closed ranks but they did not"

I suspect that it was agreed with Ashcroft. If the Tories had stepped in, it would have added fuel to the fire, by opening another front. Silence effectively killed that line of attack.

Bert

I'm sure the BBC will find ways of dragging it out. After all they have been in left wing heaven juxtaposing the saintly Foot against the villainous Ashcroft. Odd how they have allowed these stories to crowd out any real news.

Percy

@Strapworld

I think it would be fitting if they had to make donations to the Tory party.

Verityred

'Richard' is the comedy turn on this site. Even by the lowly standards of the Goebbels for Gordon brigade, he is amusingly poor quality!

Vulture

Richard - or 'little dicky' as I think of him, tells me that he's paid 2p above the minimum wage by Downing St. They say that they're very cash strapped ahead of the election and that nice Lord Paul won't fork out for 'extra' dirty trix.

(O for a Lord Cashcroft when you need him. I see BtW that there's a ghost of a smile playing arounbd Milord's funereal features. I wonder why that would be?)

No. 10 have threatened that unless Dick gets six comments into every Coffee House post they'll have to 'let him go'.

Hard times indeed for a Liebour troll.

London Calling

“David Cameron only knew about Ashcroft's non-dom status "within the last month".

It all makes sense now…someone had better tell Dave there’s an election coming up and he’s leading the Conservative Party…

MisterE

R4's World at One devoted half the programme to what basically boiled down to: "They may have been cleared, but they're probably guilty really..."

This is really getting quite pathetic now. I watched a few minutes of the Commons earlier, before lunch - I had to turn the tv off before I ended up throwing something heavy at Harman's head.

Ed P

I hope the Tories will not forget or forgive the extremely partisan BBC over this. As all 3 parties have similar non-dom support, needing investigation too, this one-sided anti-conservative "journalism" from the BBC is at best unbalanced and at worst breaking the terms of their charter.

M Bell

Ashcroft's donations finally ruled legal by the Electoral Commission but not exactly a clean slate either for the Tories based on their statement below...

Jenny Watson, chair of the commission, announcing that Bearwood had been cleared, said: "We had concerns, based on some of the evidence, about the degree of certainty within the Conservative party about the identity of the donor, but based on the evidence before us, the commission considered that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the party was uncertain about the identity of the donor when they accepted the donations.

"We have asked to meet party officials to ensure that they are clear about their responsibilities for complying with this aspect of the law."

The commission's report describes its powers as "limited", saying it could not require the donor to release documents. "The commission currently has no power to require potential witness to attend for interview. Within the limits of its current powers, the commission conducted a thorough investigation."

In its report, the commission says it cannot conclude whether the Tories complied with their duty to be certain about the identity of the donor because it was unable to question party officers directly.

It notes internal party emails – and sections of Ashcroft's book Dirty Politics, Dirty Times, which suggest the donations were from him rather than his company but it could not make a decision without direct evidence.

AngloWelshDragon

The media can continue to wring the last drops out of this story but nobody outside the Village and these political groupie blogs gives a flying f*** about Lord Ashcroft.

Liberty

It is obvious that the manufactured furore over lord Ashcroft is nothing to do with his tax status for that is legal and being non-dom is accepted by Labour and LD. It is because Lord Ashcroft is such an effective operator and has probably delivered the marginals for the Tories which will drive the Labour party from government. Just think what he could do if the Tories win. I am sure that that causes Brown and co to wake up screaming and sweating at night.

Gerry Hassan

The Specie columns on the Ashcroft affair have been spectacularly wrong from the story going critical on Monday - and the view being taken then - that it was over; a line put forward again today.

As for all the Specie texters getting hot under the collar and saying either: a) it is about nothing, or b) what about Labour non-doms or that nasty Mandelson or Harriet Harman, you are wasting your venom.

Ashcroft is very different and damaging to the Tories; and that doesnt excuse Labour non-doms or what Mandelson does. It is different beccause:

a) there has been a Tory culture of disception and lack of disclosure for ten years. Ten years over four Tory leaders: thats quite a lot of deception.

b) the original undertakings given by Ashcroft have been gone back on;

c) there are now at least two seperate accounts of this - William Hague's and Ashcroft's. Only one can be right.

d) Ashcroft is hardly comparable to Lord Paul, who is a bit-player. Ashcroft is central to the Tories, bankrolled them in the wilderness years, a key part of the Tory leadership team, the £4 million for the marginals etc.

e) All of this reflects on David Cameron's judgement. This hasnt exactly come out of the blue. He made Ashcroft Vice-Chair of the Tory Party and then engaged in obfuscation and deception.

This is a terrible story about the state of British democracy and our politics. Labour are hardly clean after 13 years or Blair/Brown, but most of the comment here just seems rather partisan, hate filled comment about Brown and Labour.

That is fundamentally missing the point, as the Specie has this week. The Tories, Cameron, Hague and Ashcroft still have questions to answer. Will they answer them?

Robert Saintfield

Had Lord Ashcroft been prescient enough to make a similar donation to the Labour Party there would have been non of this hoo-hah and his appointment to the peerage would have been unchallenged.

Richard

There you have this story will run until at least the 19th after a house of commons select commitee hearing.
The hare is running the fox has not been shot and the horse is not dead.
Now we are told that HMRC are looking into Lord Faggin's account of the affair and he could be asked to pay at least 100 million.
Which he won't of course so much for this being a non story.
Tory central office will need to manage this very carefully or else Faggin might just turn on Vague and Shameron and spill all the beans.

toco

Excellent news but what a waste of taxpayers' money.I came across Bearwood Securities at least 20 years ago and confirm it is a genuine UK based corporate finance business.Can someone please now concentrate on Labour's disgraceful decision to reduce CGT from 40% to 18% which benefits some very high profile Labour donors-it was at the expense of higher National Insurance contributions levied against people on modest incomes.Brown and Darling are refusing to answer any questions on the subject which is sinister in the extreme.

Verityred

Poor 'Little Dicky'. He hasn't got much in life and the pittance paid by his Labour leash handlers at least keeps him in cheap cider.

General Zod

No, Richard, you will try with your friends at the BBC and the rest of the leftie media to keep it going, but it is dead now.

Occasional Ostrich

Verityred
March 4th, 2010 1:29pm

How d'you think her hubby'll manage in the high heels?

Right On

I do like the intervention of a group of "this is a big story why can't anyone see it" posters.

I don't think anyone thinks it's not a story- there is no doubt there are questions to be asked about funding to political parties in this country.

However, the key question being asked by 90% of people on here is why are they focusing entirely on Lord Ashcroft - who as has now been clarified has done nothing illegal. He reached an agreement with the civil service and seems to have (shock, horror) decided that his tax status was his own business thereafter.

It's very clear that Labour are launching a smear campaign hoping that some mud will stick - they are being shamelessly supported in this by the MSM.

The only things that matter as far as the majority of people are concerned is have they done anything illegal? Answer is no. Secondly, have they done anything outwith the general behaviour of the politcal landscape? Answer is no.

Should Hague and Cameron have pushed to find out more? Maybe, but if someone wants to keep their tax status to themselves then surely that's their business unless they are breaking the law.

It still comes down to one fundamental point for me. If this was so wrong why haven't the government legislated against it in the past 13 years? Or for that matter why hasn't Ashcroft been stripped of his peerage?

OnionbagUK

The Tories should call the bluff of the Labour party. Confirm that although Ashcroft had broken no law, to show they are whiter than white they will repay the money, but only on condition that the Labour party repays the money it got from its non-doms.

AngloWelshDragon

You’ve got to feel sorry for these pocket-trolls like Richard. No real convictions beyond a thirst for power and control. Joining the liebore machine as the best vehicle to deliver a tax payer-funded career of bullying and browbeating the populace just as the Project is about to go down in flames and ignominy. No wonder his bleating about Ashcroft sounds so desperate – we are trampling on his dreams!

Tom Pride

It is worth pointing out that for these past 13 years Lord Ashcroft has funded the Opposition, not the party of Government, unlike so many other wealthy individuals who were keen to or were persuaded to contribute to the Labour Party coffers during their time in Government.

This seems to me like someone acting out of political belief and principle. It could not have been an attempt to curry favour with those currently wielding power.

I suppose that we should not be surprised that New Labour and their “impartial” mouthpieces regard contributions to the official opposition as next to criminal. Why not just go the full hog and ban any funding for opposition parties?

Richard

Why is Liam Fox speaking for cowardly Shameron........why is he hiding from the media?

JONNY

'The reporting of the Ashcroft story on this blog has become incredibly one-sided.'

Yes it certainly is Luke.
That's always the problem when Mandelson gets involved. People start looking for a virulent viper wriggling at the bottom of a foetid pool.
Come to think of it we haven't heard much from the Guardian about Lord Paul either.
You won't disagree with a fair and equal playing ground I trust.

Liz Brown

Now can we please have the pundits at Coffee House turn their attention to the affairs of Lords Paul, Mittal, Cohen, Noon et al and if they can manage it Michael Brown (batting for the Lib Dems). What a pleasant change that would be..........

paulg

Can people stop infantilizing Richards’s name it look like he is being bullied, we assume he is a grown man, although his comments do not reflect this.
Little dicky is not on! Lets assume that his spouse- if he has one, calls him little dick; whilst his friends refer to him a big dick.
But no more nastiness we are suppose to be compassionate conservatives and, his thought are always welcome.

2trueblue

Richard, you are so right, the story is not dead. Why? Because Liebore have no idea how to run an honest campaign, it is all about smear, spin, lies etc. Also you have our state owned BBC to help you and keep it going, why would it go away.

Bert,

The BBC do not report news, they are the official Brown Broadcasting Corporation and the public are forced to pay for it. Boring, lieing for Liebore

luke

Pete,

Thanks for your reassurances and I do take them very seriously.

Im incredibly conscious that the speccie (and you in particular) have called it right on Ashcroft for a long time. This was always a problem and you have been proved right that Cameron should have dealt with it much sooner.

Personally, Im still unconvniced by Hague's answers. Clearly the reassurances he was given by Ashcroft at the time of his peerage dont seem to have been followed through and that concerns me.

Alan Douglas

"The BBC, for example, had Ashcroft has this as their lead news story for two days running"

I bet Labour knew what verdict was coming, so they had to get in quick with all the smeary stuff before the truth was announced. Goebbels would be proud of them.

Alan Douglas

Kennybhoy

General Zod wrote:

"I think Richard may have called off CH-monitoring duties to help try to put together a strategy to keep the Ashcroft story going."

Come now General, do you really think that there is only one "Richard" ?

David Ossitt

Occasional Ostrich

“How d'you think her hubby'll manage in the high heels?”

Occasional; so you have heard the rumour?

Do you think that is what turns her on?

She always appears to be on the side of the trannies.

Tom Pride

paulg
March 4th, 2010 3:20pm

I might be picking up the wrong end of the stick here, but if indeed there is some problem of a delicate nature, purely in a spirit of compassion and helpfulness could I point Richard to:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7361181/Extra-small-condoms-for-12-year-old-boys-go-on-sale-in-Switzerland.html

paulg

What can I say Tom - clearly we are a family here, always helpful always supportive.

Paddy

Can't wait to see Brown at the Chilcot Enquiry tomorrow.

I'm taking the day off to watch him squirm and sweat for depriving our troops of essential equipment whilst he was chancellor.