The Tories try to plug a leak

MisterE

I wonder if they'll be calling in the police over this leak...??

Won't hold my breath.

John Ware

So much for the commitment to "transparency"

THX1138

The latest Eye has a handy cut out n keep guide to dodgy Tory donors.

toco

Charlie Whelan,Political Director of Unite and owner of the Labour Government has been camping(both in spirit and physically) in Downing Street together with his Unite funded employees who are there on a permanent basis.As a member of the 'Smeargate' email exchange with the disgraced Damian McBride and Derek Draper he or one of his employees are certainly capable of leaking sensitive information.Ask Peter Mandelson whether Whelan leaked his undisclosed loan from Geoffrey Robinson-Whelan was apparently fired by Blair for doing just that so......

Sir Graphus

I imagine there's a reasonable amount of Ashcroft material in the hands of the govt, so don't be surprised if we get an Ashcroft leak every week.

Vulture

I don't care if Ashcroft is the biggest crook since Bernie Madoffwithallyourdosh.

So long as he's ploughed enough cash into marginals to rid us of this Govt of criminals he deserves a lifesize statue in gold on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square.

stephen

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones! One of the obituaries of Michael Foot on the BBC website by Michael Crick recounts a not particularly savoury story of a Labour supporting Non Dom.

Moraymint

Sir Graphus

"... so don't be surprised if we get an Ashcroft leak every week ..."

I think I'll lose the will to live.

Naomi Muse

Classic Labour smear to try and cover over the government's failings and the failing memory of one G Broon, for he did not remember that he had cut defence spending when he was Chancellor, and then forgot that he had done so when he was PM and asked about it at the Chilcot Enquiry.

Ashcroft is a red herring, RED being the operative word.

Greenslime

It's what the Russians call maskarovska - noise and deception to distract the enemy. Broon and his acolytes have probably been taking lessons from the FSB. When they release something, ALWAYS look for what they are trying to hide behind the smokescreen.

JasonDB

It seems to me from reading the papers that residence was required, James Arbuthnot wrote to clarify that that wouldn't require domicile for tax purposes, and Hayden Phillips sought clarification and agreed with that view. In part this view was reached because Lord Paul himself was a non-domiciled member of the House of Lords. Hence Lord Ashcroft's assurances were clearly not breached, he found himself self-assuredly in the self-same position as Lord Paul was already in, and the only injudicious comment was Hague's unnecessary suggestion that residence in the UK would cost him tens of millions. Indeed, whilst injudicious that could well have been correct, dependent on the extent of Lord Ashcroft's operations in the United Kingdom. It doesn't take a great percentage of a billionaire's earnings to be UK-based for him to pay tens of millions in tax!

Perhaps the question therefore is why, in circumstances where Government officers confirmed that domicile was irrelevant to Lord Ashcroft's assurances, have the government seen fit to raise umbrage about something they saw fit and appropriate and to which they themselves ascribed a decade ago? Political opportunism anyone?

sinosimon

he would do better to ask to see the paper trail provided to brown before his appearance at chilcot, and last weeks pmq's, with reference to defence expenditure.......what documents were provided to the pm and did they contain figures that mistakenly showed year on year rises? find the documents, see the figures, and if they DON'T show such a rise there is only one conclusion to be drawn........i mean we all know brown lied, but this paper trail would prove it. surely more important than labour leaking their own documents that prove they knew ashcroft to have complied with his underataking 10 years ago.

Dorothy Wilson

The way in which the World At One covered the Ashcroft story at lunch time [yet again!] was a disgrace. the script could have been written by the No 10 spin machine. Indeed, it probably was - to all intents and purposes anyway.

Mark Demmen

And look at the flack Nick Robinson is getting on his blog after trying to flog this dead horse yet again. Strangely enough, he doesn't appear to mention any of the aspects of the story outlined above. It really is time to give the BBC a good kicking.

Ryan Wells

Hopefully the person who leaked it is found before the election. I wouldn't be surprised if they are member of Unite either.

Chuck Unsworth

No mention in any of the papers of that trade unionist Brenda Dean objecting or complaining - and this over a period of ten years. Now, I know that she's thick, but can she really be that thick?

HFC

BBC News24 earlier this afternoon: One smug presenter to another smug presenter, "This really won't go away for the Tories, will it?"

Second smug presenter, "No, it doesn't seem to does it."

And in the previous hour of 'news' - of which Ashcroft was the lead story - no mention whatsoever of Labour's non-doms or the number 10 relationship with Unite.

Hey ho, says Rowley...

M Bell

The Cabinet Office papers show that Sir Hayden Phillips wrote to Opposition chief whip Arbuthnot on 12 July 2000 saying:

"You explained that Mr Ashcroft would complete Inland Revenue Form P86 (Arrival in the UK) giving as his reasons for taking up residence in the UK, the fact that he was to take up a seat in the House of Lords and that his contract for services to the various companies with which he is involved would be based In the UK. His income under those contracts would, therefore, be
sourced in the UK and subject to UK tax."

Arbuthnot wrote back the same day saying:

"I confirm that I agree with your understanding of the position."

This would suggest that Lord Ashcroft had agreed to have his overseas companies shifted to and based in the UK for tax purposes; "his contract for services to the various companies with which he is involved would be based In the UK".

Therefore Ashcroft would be subject to UK tax on them.

Arbuthnot accepts this interpretation and based on this assurance the Honours Scrutiny Committee finally abandoned their doubts with Lord Ashcroft then receiving his peerage.

toni

@Ryan Wells
Isn’t it so appropriate, acceptable, and deserved when the leaks are against the Government, but against the opposition…just too unfair.
Suggestion: check the Damian Green handbook which will explain chapter and verse precisely how leaking works a) cultivate a friendship with some sad aspiring sap lower down the food chain and b) then with veiled suggestions of promotion or better job and c) when the doodoo hits the fan….well, the rest is history.

Norman Dee

"This would suggest that Lord Ashcroft had agreed to have his overseas companies shifted to and based in the UK for tax purposes; "his contract for services to the various companies with which he is involved would be based In the UK"."
It doesn't suggest anything of the sort, unless you are reading through BBC glasses. Get a grip !

Chuck Unsworth

@ M Bell

'this would suggest'

Only to you, I think.

Robert Haines

The only thing that becomes clear is there was concern that he wouldn't be able to meet the functions of being a "Working Peer" without being resident here. He is, just not domiciled here. And the law allowing that is still in place after 13 years of Labour rule. Hands up who has paid voluntarily paid extra tax? If they don't like it, change the law!

Andy Leeds

M. Bell,

Not so. You obviously do not understand tax law, even vaguely. A company and an individual are not one and the same, and nor do you know or understand what companies Lord Ashcroft is involved with and who owns these companies etc etc etc.

There is no evidence that Lord Ashcroft has failed to pay UK Taxes - unless tax returns, assessments etc are published you nor I can't say one way or the other. Lord Ashcroft's affairs are no different to Lord Paul's, although there is one essential difference. Lord Ashcroft has not had his hand in the public purse with dishonest expense claims. Lord Paul has.

Helen Wright

Please explain why this is a bigger story than Gordon Brown saying he didn't understand his complicated budgets, and that's why the Defence Budget was cut during a time of war - leading directly to the deaths of our soldiers?
Either he wasn't fit to be Chancellor, or he lied and isn't fit to be PM.
Either way, he should resign and go back to Scotland. The man is a disgusting, lying moron.