[Closed] More Tory Lies?

I must say I have never noticed any Tory bias on stw.

TJ - Guess what? Source? Link?

http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar/b-liar.htm

“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.

Some questions I'd like answers to

Ashcroft admits he has non-dom staus, on what grounds was it granted?

How can a British citizen who claims to be a permanent resident have this status?

When did he become a non-dom?

Why has it taken so long to confirm his status?

Did "callmedave" know about Ashcrofts status?

Is the firms that channels Ashcroft's money really British?

Will he relinquish his non-dom status

How can a member of the House of Lords be Belize's Permanent representative to the UN?

I'll think of some more.

It stinks, but then money and politics always does, no matter what colour...

[i].....clearly he mislead not only the parliament but also his own party and the public at large.....[/i]

So what's new in politics 🙄

I agree with Stoner's remark on "faux outrage" - what is the scandal here, a rich successful capitalist uses the system (of which we all enjoy some benefit) to become even richer and more successful !

To be honest it doesn't worry me a fig and I'm sure it will have exactly zero impact on my day-to-day life......

He said he would be domiciled ... in the UK

and pay tax in the UK

You still havent furnished us with a source or link to illustrate your shouty belief that he proimised to pay tax on all his international income in prior to sitting in the Lords.

Mefty - as I have told you already there is no point in me spending time searching sources as it is clear you will never be satisfied. Its all out there in the public domain.

Stoner - he, Hague and Cameron all clearly intended us to believe he was ordinarily domiciled here and was paying full UK tax. Not that he was non dom status.

This is where the deceit lies.

Check the various statements over the decade this has been brewing and the reluctance to come clean.

FAIL

Ashcroft admits he has non-dom staus, on what grounds was it granted?

How can a British citizen who claims to be a permanent resident have this status?

[i]Essentially, non-domiciled individuals, or ‘non-doms,’ are resident in the UK but have strong affiliations with another country where they were either born or their parents were born.[/i]

When did he become a non-dom?
[i]Blind Rudolph[/i]

Why has it taken so long to confirm his status?
[i]To avoid a ruckus. Oh look overhere, there's a ruckus! 😉 [/i]

Did "callmedave" know about Ashcrofts status?
[i]well d'uh! 🙄 [/i]

Is the firms that channels Ashcroft's money really British?
[i]Now thats the question. But Id be very surprised if his accountants/lawyers would drop the ball on that one. [/i]

Will he relinquish his non-dom status
[i]In his latest statement he said that if laws were brought in banning non-doms from sitting in the Lords then he would relinquish the status[/i]

How can a member of the House of Lords be Belize's Permanent representative to the UN?
[i]He quit the UN role when he went up to the Lords[/i]

Wasn't this all settled in 1936?

Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure that result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax

Stoner - he, Hague and Cameron all clearly intended us to believe he was ordinarily domiciled here and was paying full UK tax.

No.
All those on the left were hoping that he would be publicly outed as a non-dom so they could let rip an anti-patriotic, tax-dodging rant when they managed to force the public disclosure of his private tax status. Everyone knew perfectly bloody well he was a non-dom. The faux outrage goes with the squeals of delight from the left for forcing it out in the open.

Mefty - as I have told you already there is no point in me spending time searching sources as it is clear you will never be satisfied. Its all out there in the public domain.

I think there's [b]every[/b] point in your trotting off and putting a bit of effort into trying to find a statement from either Lord Aschroft or the Party that his intention was always to relinquish his non-dom status before sitting in the Lords: because you wont find one. And you just constantly repeating that it's true without any evidence still isnt cutting it.

[i]In his latest statement he said that if laws were brought in banning non-doms from sitting in the Lords then he would relinquish the status[/i]

Hmmmm, how long will "callmedave" take to change the law here if he becomes PM, do we think?

Bearwood...That's where the bodies (if there are any) are going to be dug up...If the Electoral commission decide it's not trading in the UK, then the Cons have to give the money back...

Actually, is it any different to what this blokes been doing for the past thirty years TJ?

I don't see you calling for him to be expelled from your local ruling party, and who gave him a knighthood? Oh, yeah, your mate Tony...

[img] [/img]

Cranberry I have not said that tax avoidance was illegal I know the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
I have questioned the morality though of someone influencing the election here and being a high ranking member of a political party when they do not actually live here or pay all/the majority of their tax here. I would prefer my politicians, whatever their hue, to actually live in this country and pay all their tax here.
It is off course illegal for a foreign national to give money to parties hence why he used his comapny to do this

No what he actually said was he would become a permanent resident but managed to somehow get permanent resident defined as long term residentof the UK.
He has agreed to take up permanent residence AGAIN but in the sense we all assume it means- live and pay tax in the UK as Dave will make him.

are resident in the UK but have strong affiliations with another country where they were either born or their parents were born

Exactly my objection he essentially claims his first affinity is to another country but wants to influence the result here. Surely treason ❓ to either us or Belize take your pick 😆

Junkyard,want to bet that move will never appear if Dave does not win the election.

TJ - So in other words you can't. You don't exactly wield the sword of truth more the dirk of a backstabber.

Stoner - get a grip - of course he intended to mislead. I have been following this since 2000 and it is very clear.

You are so partisan and blind that you will not see it. Its been clear for a decade that we were supposed to believe he was ordinarily domiciled in the UK and that he paid full UK taxes

Loads and loads of statements that while maybe allowing him wriggle room were clearly intended to make us believe he would not be a non dom and that is why he was so reluctant to let it out he was a non dom.

Google finds you loads of examples quoted in the Tory press as well

For example

Lord Ashcroft disclosed that he negotiated the previously unknown deal within months of telling William Hague, then the Tory leader, that he would take up permanent residence in the UK. At the time Mr Hague said that the decision would “benefit the Treasury tens of millions a year in tax”.

There can be no misunderstanding about the context of Lord Ashcroft’s promise. His memoirs are dominated by his frustration at being blocked for a peerage because he was a “tax exile”. [b]The natural and ordinary meaning of his memorandum is that he was coming home to pay taxes.[/b] It is odd that he has now come clean.

i think you lot all owe TJ an apology

What you tory bois cannot admit is the deceit - and attacking labour scores you no points with me.

Yes labour and SNP have non doms bankrolling them - pretty dirty but non of them were deceitful in the way Ashcroft was

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/03/ashcroft-affair-what-papers-say.html

Duckman I am not even sure he will do it if the Tories win let alone if they dont. He will probably just redefine permanent resident to just visiting for 5 years.

EDIT: yes some of the other non doms are not that pleasant either Sean "Spain " Connory [spell] being a great example. It is a n odd thing for a democracy that we allow foreign nationals to fund our political parties and own our press. It is surely possible that these peoples agenda may not be in our countires best interest? Murdoch? Ashcroft etc certainly they will not have to live with the consequences as they can just go home

kimbers - Member

i think you lot all owe TJ an apology

I doubt I'll be getting one.

anyone who is not blinded by right wing ideology can clearly see the deceit - its in all the papers from right to left. Telegraph to mirror.

TJ - you crack on and on about deceit....

[b]Did he actually lie[/b], [u]yes or no answer?[/u]

not at all kimbers.

TJ those are editorials written today.

Apart from possibly the reference: [i]"At the time Mr Hague said that the decision would “benefit the Treasury tens of millions a year in tax”. "[/i] and whether it might be misconstrued as being of such a scale to represent his international income or whether his domestic income could give the treasury such sums. There's nothing in either of those articles to illustrate his intention to relinquish his non dom and so pay tax on his international income rather [b]than just his UK income[/b] which would be the effect of his promised change in residency.

Just as you have they are simply jumping on a bandwagon and inferring a committment that was never given. Its not right wing ideology over here TJ, it's a respect for the facts.

Did he intend to mislead? The telegraph and the times clearly believe he did even if he used weasel words.

Stoner - how can you believe that after those quotes?

Again TJ - Did he actually lie, yes or no answer?

Z-11 did he intend to mislead - yes or no?

TJ which quotes? As far as I can see the only one that might indicate a substantial income to the treasury from what might be more than his UK earnings is the one I put in my text and that is far from evidence of a committment to become domiciled for tax.

Have you got other quotes that indicate either Ashcroft or someone in the Party committed him to paying tax on [b]all[/b] his income? All the other quotes I can see in those editorials are hearsay from other commentators.

Anywhere I think we're now at the impasse where I'm not going to change my stance unless you can produce some factual evidence (and you wont be able to) and you will continue to maintain that Im blinkered because I wont hang a man for inferences made by others.

We can probably leave this one now.

Junkyard - Unfortunately, although the answer was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear....

Thats the game, the very nature of politics, all politicians are guilty of it.

The question is, and must remain, did he [b]lie[/b]?

^ post of the show.

*claps*

to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear

Im using that one day 😉

Stoner - If all the papers including the times and telegraph and many in his own party believe he misled and intentionally so then thats good enough for me.

He may have left wriggle room so he cannot be called on a direct lie but it is clear that he intended everyone to think he was domiciled in the UK for tax purposes and infact he never was.

Re read the editorial in the times I linked to

There can be no misunderstanding about the context of Lord Ashcroft’s promise. His memoirs are dominated by his frustration at being blocked for a peerage because he was a “tax exile”. [b]The natural and ordinary meaning of his memorandum is that he was coming home to pay taxes. [/b]It is odd that he has now come clean.

Have you started drinking the meths earlier today ratty?

All he has said is that he would abide by the terms of the undertaking that he gave, the undertaking itself was confidential. And he and the Tories generally kept to this line, whilst this may not have been enlightening it is certainly not misleading. Hague's comment could be right, no idea I would need to know more about Ashcroft's tax position, I would be surprised if he did not have sources of UK income. It also could be wrong, can't judge, insufficient evidence.

As far as the columnist's views, he seems to slag off Ashcroft for adopting a legal interpretation of a legal document. Well what does he expect? His understanding of the technicalities of the law are pretty much summed up by his definition of a non-dom as an international jet setter.

Stoner/Junkyard -

TJ - once again - Did he actually lie, yes or no answer?

Zulu - to which I reply did he intend to deceive? Did he "obfusticate" anbd attempt to hinder the information commissioners investigation?

He may have a lawyers escape in twisting the meaning of his words but it is clear to anyone with half a brain that he intended the country at large to believe he was ordinarily UK resident and paying full UK tax.

So he certainly intentionally mislead - an actual lie? it depends on meanings you ascribe to certain words. IMO Yes he did

Ian Munro - Member
Watched Channel 4 Dispatches this evening?
I think you should post your views about it over here
http://forum.mpacuk.org/forumdisplay.php?f=18

Nahhh ... they can keep to themselves or go away as I aint going to have a debate with them.

😀

TJ i think you will find he was ordinarily resident but again that is not domicile.

TJ, Politicans mislead, its the nature of the beast - Its like complaining that your pet killer whale has just eaten someone, what do you expect?

If you choose to uncritically not read between the lines of anything said by any politician of any party, and expect it to reflect accurately his or her position, then you're either naive or a fool - I actually don't think you're the latter, probably not the former, so I surmise that you're whipping yourself up in false indignation at something that you already knew to be the position.

He told the truth, accurately and clinically, if you were mislead by that, then the only person who misled you was yourself!

You've got a right to complain when a politician lies - the fact that he's supposedly managed to mislead all these people and the press by telling the truth shows he's a bloody good politician, just the sort we want running the country - indeed, the fact that he's a multi millionaire, knows how to run profitable businesses and keep it also shows he's just the sort we want running the country - not like the bunch of recalcitrant Trotskyites you'd thrust upon us that know only how run around like a bunch of latter day highwaymen spending the money they have stolen off the rest of us!

z11 you want your politicians to be as deceitful as possible?

It might be good if we did - then we could say that they're performing brilliantly 😉

Ahhhh, Zulu, it was all going so well, right up to the last sentence...

He told the truth, accurately and clinically, if you were mislead by that, then the only person who misled you was yourself!

the fact that he's supposedly managed to mislead all these people and the press by telling the truth shows he's a bloody good politician, just the sort we want running the country - indeed, the fact that he's a multi millionaire, knows how to run profitable businesses and keep it also shows he's just the sort we want running the country

genius, so glad my views are very far from yours and so sad that people such as yourself get to vote. Oh well C'est la vie