And another thing…

I think Gordon Brown should start looking in his own back yard first

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6954597.ece

So what about ‘Lord’ Paul then Tom. He’s a non-domiciled Labour Peer, make substantial donations to Labour and is also under investigation for less than transparent expense claims. He claims House of Lords expenses on the basis of a flat he owns which is occupied by a member of his staff and which he admits he has NEVER once stayed in.

If Labour were honest (hahaha) they wouldn’t accept donations from a non-domiciled Peer would they. But Labour isn’t honest – Gordon has just rewarded ‘Lord’ Paul by making him a (non-domiciled) member of the Privy Council.

Yeah, right, because this issue has been a running sore in the Conservative Party for ears because of Lord Paul. Not Ashcroft ad not Zac Gldfinger… This is scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit, isn’t it?

Okay, try this for size: if Paul is, as you say, a non-dom, I don’t think he should be in the Lords. Would you say the same about Ashcroft and Goldfinger (the Commons as far as the latter is concerned)?

Labour have also accepted large donations from Lakshmi Mittal, the Indian steel magnate. Palatial residence in London, but also a non-dom I believe.

Pot, kettle black Tom. Labour should clean up its own backyard before criticising others.

Ashcroft isn’t claiming ANY expenses from the House of Lords, which is why no-one knows for certain whether he is a non-dom or not. He hasn’t declared his ‘home’ to the Parliamentary authorities. ‘Lord’ Paul however is claiming taxpayer funded expenses based on a property he has never even stayed in – and then makes substantial donations to Labour…. almost like he’s exploiting the expenses loopholes and using money received from UK taxpayers to try and keep Labour on the rails, isn’t it.

The strangest thing is Ashcroft could end all the damaging speculation in a second.
And make the Labour party(and others) look stupid..

The Question is. so why doesn’t he ?

Mr Mxyzptlk –

Perhaps he’s enjoying winding them up? I know I would.

So, Boudicca – given that Ashcroft accepted his peerage on condition he paid taxes in the UK, do you think he should clarify his position?

Look Mr Mxyzptlk, this is none of your business.
We Tories move in mysterious ways, don’t question my motives.
Scotland needs us, and anyway Ashcroft is above reproach.
Taxi for McLetchie!.

Chameleon ask Cashcroft a Question? He would as like send Osborne out for 20 Rothmans while the TV cameras were rolling.

I’m sure, if Ashcroft was required to surrender his non-dom status, then like the Honourable Lord he is, he will have done it.

However, personally I’d rather have a non-dom Lord who isn’t leeching off UK taxpayers than a non-dom Lord who is. I wonder if Baroness Uddin is also a non-dom. She’s another Labour Peer who thinks it’s fine to claim overnight expenses for a property outside London – which lay empty since she acquired it shortly after being ‘ennobled’ by Gordon Brown.

I think Cameron is right. After the election, whoever is in Government should pass legislation requiring all members of Parliament (Lords and Commons) to pay UK taxes. I’m sure Lord Paul will agree.

Is this dislike of pointless legislation also being applied to the budget deficit bill and the child poverty bill?

Pointless? Au contraire! I think it should be introduced this week and rushed through both houses before Christmas – with the full co-operation of the Conservatives, of course…

hmmm… I cant help but think that filling the statute book with unnecessary legislation might do more harm than good when it comes to perceptions of politics as a whole

Hague had Ashcroft ennobled and recently was embarrassed to be asked if he knew wether Ashcroft was fulfilling the terms of his membership of the H o L.

Michael Howard was happy to take some of the Cashcroft one hundred million shillings reputedly donated to date, but had the wit to tell the foreign based scunner that the Cons party would spend the money their own way.

Not so Mr David Chameleon. He let the man into CCHQ and gave him more office space than the leader has. And he decides how his contribution will be spent (Apart from the contributions in kind – like the loan of the jet)

What is needed is a full investigation of Ashcroft. Is he both qualifies and fit to be a member of our Parliament, as members of the House of Lords are?

He was the largest ever party political donor in Australia (to the Liberal party, losing); is cited in Belize for what sound like less than honest donations; and loaned hundreds of thousands of pounds to a Turks and Caicos politician.

THREE continents, and that is all that is disclosed publicly so far.

Ot seems very unlikely that a Tory Government here would have brought in the disclosure legislation Labour has.

Small wonder Chameleon doesn’t want an elected House of Lords.

You know the Labour party has been on about this time and again. They have done nothing about it.

It has taken David Cameron to do something positive about it. So all you can do is carp from the sidelines.

I welcome Camerons responce and so should you Tom.

I don’t think the investigation should be led by the gutless leader of the opposition, who may have an interest in the matter.

Likely the Met or the Fraud Office should get together on this one.

And this line of attack is going to win the election for “New” Labour, is it Tom?

What about the trade unions’ funding of your party? Are you happy that they can find millions of £s from their members’ subscriptions to run your GE campaign rather than spend it on supporting their members?

Your party is bankrupt (both financially and morally), the country your Government purports to run is bankrupt and if “New” Labour is re-elected we will all be certainly bankrupted for decades to come.

You have lost the argument. Get over it.
Labour (old or new) is a busted flush. Concentrate on Twitter. That’s where your future seems to lie.

Three points occured to me about today’s announcement:

1. After being adamant the other day that this was a purely private matter, Cameron now suddenly believes that there is a need for legislation as a matter of urgency. All politicians of course must be flexible but Cameron is in danger of giving himself whiplash. A clear illustration of a legislative agenda driven by media rather than principle.

2. “Sources” say Ashcroft was consulted, showing not only the extent to which Cameron treads on eggshells where Ashcroft is concerned but tacitly admitting that he is affected by the proposed legislation and that therefore he did not honour the promise made in 2000. Nor, absent the proposed legislation, will any steps be taken that he do so.

3. Think about what today’s announcement means: Cameron accepts that the present state of affairs is unacceptable. He will do precisely nothing about it unless we elect him. How on earth does he get away with this?

My take is that Cameron doesn’t want his Shadow Foreign Secretary exposed as either a dupe or a dissimulator when he gave the undertakings about Lord Ashcroft after his nomination to the Lords was bounced the first time he made it. Think of the personal integrity William Hague will bring to a possible Tory Government’s foreign policy and then go ahead and expose the twisting Tory for what he is please.

It’s not good for democracy to have one extremely wealthy man trying to buy power for his party of choice. And it’s not good for the Tory party itself, because the smokescreen around Ashcroft’s tax issues brings it into disrepute.

The sense is of Ashcroft as a law unto himself, with Cameron completely impotent to do anything about it, except pretend to talk tough while doing nothing.

Incidentally, I think the real Boudicca would be rather surprised to have her name taken in vain by someone defending a very rich man who lives abroad, a bit like an Roman emperor of olden days, who thinks he can throw his weight around with the natives.

Anyone know what Blair’s tax status is?

@ Richard
Sunday 13 December 2009 at 10:43 pm

Horse. Stable. Door. Bolted. Closing.

A decent, honest government would be more concerned with removing legislation than implementing new laws.

But then, a decent populous would not have allowed a government to force through such restrictive laws without protest. Maybe we get the government we deserve.

Paul: “A decent, honest government would be more concerned with removing legislation than implementing new laws.”

You do realise, don’t you, that this new law has been proposed by David Cameron and not the government?

It’s not really a crime to accept a peerage on the grounds that you will declare yourself a full, UK taxpayer and then not do so.

It’s just dishonest.

Labour are comming apart at the seams. They have no answer to Camerons move he has taken the wind out of Labours sails AGAIN.

Labour have complained about this whilst condoning many of their own people doing it. Perhaps they are so unhappy about it that Labour have more to loose than the Tories.
Balls is changing his children vetting thing as its a complete mess. Not thought out, not consulted on. It will punish the inocent whilst they let out thousands of crimininals on the soft law and oreder policy.What a complete shambolic mess.Its just one thing after another. They may call an early election as they think their chances are improving. I was laughing so much it hurt, they just have no idea.

Tom, doesn’t matter who proposed it, if it becomes popular enough in the press it will be implemented by this government.

Knee-jerk legislative reaction to tabloid headlines has been the trademark of UK governments at least since Major was in office.

There is a third option – that Cameron knows Lord Ashcroft’s finances are above board but that he doesn’t want to force a private individual to open up his affairs to public scrutiny…

Whatever the truth, the simple fact is that party political donations are in a mess. All three parties have taken donations from people who are, at best, suspect in their affairs. The whole system needs looking at.

Lovely the way Nulabour and their chums at the BBC try and pretend that the biggest issue facing the country today is whether our legislators are all UK taxpayers.

Legislators fiddling their expenses is a far bigger story – and not one, Tosh, you have seemed overly-keen on blogging about.

The topic is a non-issue hyped-up by a failed government who want the focus to be on anything other than their own record. (Given that record, who can blame them)

But on you go, Tosh, keep pretending this issue is very important to you; and indeed all of us.

Nicky right about Boudicca, she most likely spear throwing in her grave.

Chameleon has very good reasons to delay any action re the vipers in his party’s nest until after the election: if he wins it Tories have already indicated that they will ensure Labour doesn’t have enough money to rival them again, and if he doesn’t the splits will not be his problem, and Cashcroft can decamp, or his cash can, to somewhere else.

But things are not going Chameleons way. Even James Kirkup is puzeled:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/wp-comments-post.php

Shame. Oh, Tim Montgomerie is “surprised.”

I didn’t like to suggest that their collective arrogance may have been reflecting in many members of the general public’s minds so unfairly on Chameleon, who was criticised by some of the Dully Tele reptiles for just that some years back.

We’ve all met public schoolboys who have normal levels of self confidence and means of self expression. And others.

An excellent post, Tom.