[Closed] More Tory Lies?

Whether or not he lied, his intent was clearly to deceive. Whether he lied or not isn't relevant in the slightest to me, his conduct is unfit for a member of the House of Lords. To me, he can donate what he likes, be resident where he wants, but he should not be a Lord- he gained the position by deceit, and that lack of integrity marks him as unfit.

That said, I'd be amazed if he's the least honest Lord.

anagallis_arvensis

Democracy really is a shitter isn't it?

So, what political party do you support?

is it perhaps the magical mystical one that tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth all the time, and gets all its money from the banking fairies that grow money trees? and who know what the public want and need better than the public itself does...

In the words of the film: "you want the truth? you can't handle the truth!"

When you grow up and emerge from your lefty cocoon, you'll realise than national governments don't have power - multinational corporations, oil magnates and the Bilderbergers have the power, national governments are merely PR exercises to keep the proletariat working and consuming!

Some people on here appear believe that the Lord Ashcroft affair is some sort of 'non-story'. Indeed Stoner suggests that TJ's outrage is simply [i]"the pure ranting of the jealous left"[/i] and that he is [i]"upset simply because he's bank rolling the tory machine"[/i]

And yet ....... all the serious newspapers in Britain have treated the Lord Ashcroft tax affair as a very important story. In fact every single one, including the Financial Times, felt it was [i]so important[/i], that they placed it on the front page.

Some even felt compelled to write leader comments on the story :

[i]Lord Ashcroft is not just any old political donor. As deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, he has become a significant public figure. His tax status is thus a matter of legitimate public interest. [u]His behaviour in concealing it should be a matter of public concern[/u].

Despite this prominence, Lord Ashcroft has long appeared to consider himself the victim of a media witch-hunt, which forms an unreasonable intrusion into his private and business life. This has always been a childish conceit. Since he became the Conservative deputy chairman in 2007, it has been an absurd one. If Lord Ashcroft wishes his life to be entirely private, he should not have made himself a public figure of great influence. Most pertinently, [u]he gave very public assurances about aspects of his life as a condition of entering the House of Lords[/u] in 2000.

For the past ten years, the peer has treated inquiries about his tax status as a game, to be played with a smirk...........even now, Lord Ashcroft keeps the same smirking tone. In finally admitting his non-dom status, he does not say, directly, that it will soon change.

Wilfully, or because he simply cannot help himself, he continues to give the impression of holding not only regular British taxpayers but also his own colleagues in contempt.[/i]

That was from today's editorial in The Times. Tomorrow's Times will have another editorial which claims :

[i]In order to become a peer in 2000, Lord Ashcroft gave certain assurances to Parliament, this newspaper and the Conservative Party. As any reasonable person would now have to concede, [u]these assurances have not been met[/u].

This newspaper is not alone in having laboured under the misapprehension that a permanent, tax-paying residency was Lord Ashcroft’s intention. His own party would appear to have been under this impression too.

The most damaging charge that can be levelled at Mr Cameron’s Tories is that they are not as other people, and do not live by everyday rules.

For the most part, the electorate cares little about the finer detail of commitments given by shadowy peers. They do care about their politicians following the same standards that they do.

With an election mere weeks away, even Lord Ashcroft must realise that he has served his party as much as he can. [u]Mr Cameron should thank him for this service, and ask him to return to the private life[/u] that he so clearly craves.[/i]

So The Times is apparently sufficiently outraged by the Ashcroft affair, to call for the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party to be sacked.

I bet Rupert Murdoch will be surprised when he is informed that the leader writers of his newspaper engage in [i]"the pure ranting of the jealous left"[/i]

😕

ah.here you are, gus. pissed now (me, not you, natch).
will deal with you tomorrow. hic and kisses,
stoner

Nicely put Ernie.

*Doffs cap*

Those trying to undermine my position as Treasurer
– and in the process harming my business interests on both sides
of the Atlantic – were The Times, one of Britain’s oldest and most
influential newspapers, and the Labour Government, led by Tony
Blair and his cronies.

"In order to become a peer in 2000, Lord Ashcroft gave certain assurances to Parliament, this newspaper and the Conservative Party. As any reasonable person would now have to concede, these assurances have not been met."

I agree with the Times. FUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHH

Errnie/TJ... anyone

Tell me, if I was a US domicile that ran a million dollar profit business in New York, Another million dollar profit business in Los Angeles, and an entirely separate 1.5 million pound profit business business in London - where would you say it was fair for me to pay taxes on the profits of the UK only business?

i) To the US treasury
ii) To Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
iii) To both

I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can't deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
You get sprung, wanna pull out your tough
'Cause you notice that butt was stuffed
Deep in the jeans she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh baby, I wanna get with you
And take your picture
My homeboys tried to warn me
But that butt you got makes me so horny
Ooh, Rump-o'-smooth-skin
You say you wanna get in my Benz?
Well, use me, use me
'Cause you ain't that average groupie
I've seen them dancin'
To hell with romancin'
She's sweat, wet,
Got it goin' like a turbo 'Vette
I'm tired of magazines
Sayin' flat butts are the thing
Take the average black man and ask him that
She gotta pack much back
So, fellas! (Yeah!) Fellas! (Yeah!)
Has your girlfriend got the butt? (Hell yeah!)
Tell 'em to shake it! (Shake it!) Shake it! (Shake it!)
Shake that healthy butt!
Baby got back!

(LA face with Oakland booty)
Baby got back!

[Sir Mix-a-Lot]
I like 'em round, and big
And when I'm throwin' a gig
I just can't help myself, I'm actin' like an animal
Now here's my scandal
I wanna get you home
And ugh, double-up, ugh, ugh
I ain't talkin' bout Playboy
'Cause silicone parts are made for toys
I want 'em real thick and juicy
So find that juicy double
Mix-a-Lot's in trouble
Beggin' for a piece of that bubble
So I'm lookin' at rock videos
Knock-kneeded bimbos walkin' like hoes
You can have them bimbos
I'll keep my women like Flo Jo
A word to the thick soul sisters, I wanna get with ya
I won't cuss or hit ya
But I gotta be straight when I say I wanna ******
Till the break of dawn
Baby got it goin' on
A lot of simps won't like this song
'Cause them punks like to hit it and quit it
And I'd rather stay and play
'Cause I'm long, and I'm strong
And I'm down to get the friction on
So, ladies! {Yeah!} Ladies! {Yeah}
If you wanna roll in my Mercedes {Yeah!}
Then turn around! Stick it out!
Even white boys got to shout
Baby got back!

Baby got back!
Yeah, baby ... when it comes to females, Cosmo ain't got nothin'
to do with my selection. 36-24-36? Ha ha, only if she's 5'3".

[Sir Mix-a-Lot]
So your girlfriend rolls a Honda, playin' workout tapes by Fonda
But Fonda ain't got a motor in the back of her Honda
My anaconda don't want none
Unless you've got buns, hun
You can do side bends or sit-ups,
But please don't lose that butt
Some brothers wanna play that "hard" role
And tell you that the butt ain't gold
So they toss it and leave it
And I pull up quick to retrieve it
So Cosmo says you're fat
Well I ain't down with that!
'Cause your waist is small and your curves are kickin'
And I'm thinkin' bout stickin'
To the beanpole dames in the magazines:
You ain't it, Miss Thing!
Give me a sister, I can't resist her
Red beans and rice didn't miss her
Some knucklehead tried to dis
'Cause his girls are on my list
He had game but he chose to hit 'em
And I pull up quick to get wit 'em
So ladies, if the butt is round,
And you want a triple X throw down,
Dial 1-900-MIXALOT
And kick them nasty thoughts
Baby got back!

End of thread.

So, shall we talk about the Labour Non-Dom donors now? Or, should we talk about Tony Blair's tax and residency status instead?

New thread, maybe? "More Labour lies?"

His autobiography also details his intention to have his ashes scattered in Belize. Choice of burial plot is an important indicator of domicile and would be one the reasons be why he can be permanently resident here as he agreed to be and domiciled elsewhere.

"So, shall we talk about the Labour Non-Dom donors now?"

If any of them have secured a place in the house of lords by deceit, then by all means do so. As much as some people might like to muddy the issue this isn't simply about being a non-dom donor.

.....Rupert Murdoch will not be too surprised, wouldn't want to shock him at his time of life.

I think that Rupert might be a tad surprised that his leader writers engage in [i]the pure rantings of the jealous left.[/i]

But of course it would appear that [i]none[/i] of serious papers have a lot of time for Lord Ashcroft's shady shenanigans. The leader comment from that arch Tory paper, the Telegraph :

[i] Lord Ashcroft has always defended his coyness over his tax affairs by insisting on his right to privacy. Given that he is a public figure – not only a peer of the realm but also the deputy chairman of the Conservatives, the party's biggest single donor and one of the architects of its general election strategy – that right must surely be somewhat circumscribed.

Even so, it seems to have taken an imminent Freedom of Information disclosure about his tax status to persuade him to do something that he should sensibly have done a decade ago and reveal his non-dom status. Voters are understandably suspicious of wealthy, unelected figures who are politically powerful, and the best way to allay such doubts is through transparency............he should have come clean much sooner. [/i]

Not many newspapers appear to share Lord Ashcroft's demand for privacy. Or have the 'jealous left' infiltrated the Telegraph too ?

Northwind, shall we talk about Mandelson then? Nice honest member of the upper chamber. Erm.

As northwind says - the issue all along is not the non dom status nor where he pays tax nor the bankrolling of the party [i]but the deceit[/i].

Attack labour by all means for stuff they have done - or other parties as well.

You will not alter the fact that one of the most senior tories has been caught misleading the country deliberately and Cameron is left with a huge amount of egg on his face having been made a party to the deceit

Just wait until the investigation into the donation route is finished. Thats a really murky pool that the tories are desperately hoping they can filibuster until after the election.

shall we talk about Mandelson then?

Oh go on then.

But maybe on a different thread ?

After all...........you wouldn't want to gloss over dodgy Tory peers, now would you ?

Yes, because obviously he's a non-dom donor to the labour party? No? Ah.

Totally agree with the Telegraph's analysis, it would have been better if he had disclosed it earlier - he choose not to as was his right. My guess having perused his autobigraphy is he enjoys p1ssing people he disagrees with off, not edifying but not deceitful. (Therefore the Times is probably right when it says he has a smirk on his face.)

Mandelson - nasty little shite of the slimiest type.
Are we agreed? Fine. Thats that dealt with then.

I doubt you will find anyone to defend him unlike the queues of toryboys trying to defend Ashcroft ( and failing miserably) ( actually Mefty has done a decent job of playing a very poor hand)

Totally agree with the Telegraph's analysis, it would have been better if he had disclosed it earlier - he choose not to as was his right.

Apparently you [i]don't[/i] agree with the Telegraph's analysis.

From the Telegraph's leader comment : [i]"........that right must surely be somewhat circumscribed."[/i]

Ive always rather liked mandelson. He's the best politician out there.

so neeer 😛

He's the best politician out there.

Ah, it's all starting to make sense now Stoner...........Mandelson has [u]twice[/u] been forced to resign due to dodgy financial dealings. You admire politicians with 'dodgy financial dealings' ! Therefore you've rallied to Lord Ashcroft's defence 😀

.

Or do you admire Lord Mandelson cause he's the poshest toff in the Labour Party ? .........maybe it's a bit of both - eh ? 💡

EL - I do agree with the DT, they don't think he should have had an unhindered right to privacy, fine I think they are right - but that doesn't mean he didn't have such a right.

Lots of posh Labour members, Quentin Davies, the Dunwoody daughter etc. Mandelson does have the best title though.

Some interesting stuff coming out in Wednesday's Guardian about Ashcroft's supposed agreement to pay tax as a domiciled citizen in order to become a peer. Apparently includes a letter from William Hague stating these were the conditions agreed for his peerage.

Some good stuff there indeed philby

He mentioned the "solemn and binding" undertaking Ashcroft made in 2000 to Hague to become a "permanent resident" of the UK that year and Ashcroft's unsubstantiated claim that the government later confirmed this could mean he became a "long-term" resident.

"However, this cannot be the condition he was required to meet in 2000," Mandelson wrote, "because the 'long-term resident' rule was only introduced in April 2008 – eight years after he made his promise."

In a letter to the prime minister, dated 22 March 2000, the chairman of the scrutiny committee, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said it required "firm evidence of an unequivocal decision by Mr Ashcroft that he will have taken up residence in the UK on a permanent basis" before it could recommend his appointment.

The letter said the issue of his tax residence "seems central" and could be resolved only by "an assurance about such an irrevocable decision, carrying with it messages about availability and status as a UK taxpayer"

Tee hee - it gets better and better - copy and paste rebuttal are appearing on blogs all over the net in one of the clumsiest actions I have ever seen.

Oh they must be bricking it at central office

Junkyard,sorry to change the subject,but you have been tannoyed by the "I'd like to punch the pope thread"

I'd love to vote Conservative at the next election. I can't stand New Labour, and I can never work out what (if anything) the LibDems stand for. I've even been known to help out a friend with canvassing for Conservative councillors.

But it looks to me like, once you get past the weasel words, that this man has indulged in deliberate deception in order to get his place in the House of Lords. And it reflects very badly on people like William Hague and David Cameron. It calls into question their judgment, which for a politician is everything.

What a piece of work he is.

Lord Ashcroft casts a long shadow on the next general election. According to the information released by the Electoral Commission, he has donated over £5m to the Conservative party and its associations. A large proportion of this money is targeted at marginal seats in order to swing the election for the Conservatives. The donations have been made by Bearwood Corporate Services, a UK-registered company ultimately controlled by Lord Ashcroft. However, the company has been making losses for years. Its most recent accounts for the year to 30 September 2008 show that the company had an accumulated loss of £3,928,665.

Ordinary folk make political donations out of income already taxed in the UK. But Bearwood did not have sufficient income to cover political donations. Most of the cash donated to the Conservative party has therefore come from Lord Ashcroft's operations in Belize

From the guardian. This is why Bearwood is being investigated. A preliminary investigation showed a case to answer and the full investigation is ongoing. Ashcroft and the tory party are doing their best to block the investigation but on the surface this is clear illegality. Either bearwood is a shell company for laundering donations or it has undeclared or untaxed income.

The letters do not really shed any further light on this. I dealt with Hague’s letter previously as to the rest.

The Lords Committee wanted him to give a solemn undertaking that he would take up permanent residence in the UK. He gave such an undertaking and claims that he abided by it while retaining his non domiciliary status. You may think that is not possible because it is a perversion of common use of language but it is. For instance, if someone, such as Ashcroft, maintains a wish to be buried, or have their ashes scattered in the other country, and continues to maintain strong ties with that country, albeit while not being resident there, it is highly likely he would retain that domicile. That is the law, it may pervert common usage but that is nothing new.

The Guardian suggests that non dom status is equivalent to being a tax exile, that is just as much perversion of common usage, an exile to me is someone who lives abroad, Ashcroft does not anymore so how can he be an exile?

Mandelson is just trying to bamboozle which he is quite good at, while the term “long term resident” became a defined term in tax legislation in April 2008, it does not mean it had no meaning previously. In the absence of a statutory definition, it should simply be interpreted in line with common usage (i.e. unperverted by the law.).

For a donation to be legal, it needs to be from a UK resident company carrying on a business in the UK, there is no requirement for it to be profit making. Nothing illegal there either.

Finally, would it be unreasonable of Lord Ashcroft to question why he should be subject to more onerous demands than other working peers such as Lords Paul and Cohen?

Slight error, I inadvertantely appointed Sir Ron Cohen to House of Lords. The point stands.

Come off it Mefty!

Its clear that Lord Thomson of Monifieth and the rest of the comittee intended that he would be resident, domiciled and paying full UK tax - go read the letters on the guardian website.

You are getting less and less plausible.

Hague talked of tens of millions of pounds tax a year so he obviously intended it to be believed that Ashcroft would be resident, domiciled and a UK taxpayer.

I did read the Guardian letters. The term domicile was never used, if that is what they intended surely they should have written it? Or were they mindful that it would be unfair to make more onerous demands on Ashcroft than other working peers?

As far as Hague's comment is concerned I dealt with that on page 5, as follows:

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.

>You are getting less and less plausible.

Whereas you started out completely implausible and are hoping for a late comeback ? 🙂

Come on mefty - you are still arguing semantics when the meaning of the undertaking was clear to everyone including Hague and the committee the pledge was made to as being fully resident in the UK including for tax purposes.

Isn't it entirely typical of New labour to appoint Mendelson to go after Ashcroft, just about the only politician most people would trust even less with billions than Ashcroft....

I'm no expert on tax law but seeing as Ashcroft instead of paying taxes in this country decided to spend the money funding the Conservative party, doesn't that mean we've been paying for it? Surely that means we get to have a say about what's in the campaign? We could have giant posters all over Westminster "Non domicile tax cheats...It's time to close in" Or just entertain everyone by getting Wolves to chase Michael Howard through a wood

You may believe that, but unfortunately you can't find any factual evidence to support that view. When such evidence is requested you just post comment and supposition. I personally need a lot more before flinging round allegations of deceit.

Mefty - if the fact that all the papers editorial writers and the lords committee chairman believed that and clearly Hague did from the comment about tens of millions of pounds in tax it is disingenuous for you to pretend it is not true.

You can huff and puff as much as you like but there isn't any evidence to back it up. It must be very frustrating, the Guardian has let you down, just put a helmet on before you bang your head against the wall.

["However, the company has been making losses for years. Its most recent accounts for the year to 30 September 2008 show that the company had an accumulated loss of £3,928,665."]

Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd is small enough not to give full accounts discloser so does not give turnover, gross profit or net profit. According to Bearwoods published accounts, that £3.9 million is not a loss but a negative P&L reserve. Given the limited information in the accounts you could assume that this is then an accumulated loss. However the this figure includes the interesting term "other appropriations".

Interesting set of accounts, I note that they do not list the companies activities.

Mefty - how can you deny what is so clear? [b] Direct quotes from the people involved [/b]that prove that Ashcroft mislead intentionally the public, the press and his own party.

" there is none so blind"

Lady Thomson recalled that the fast-moving events interrupted a visit to Cyprus she was making with her husband.

She told Channel 4 News: "The Ashcroft saga had been rumbling on. The call came from the British consul in Nicosia that he had got to see my husband in confidence. A place was arranged - at a crossroads with a cafe.

"We made our way to the cafe. George and the consul had a private talk and looked at the documents and made their decision. I think they imposed restrictions. When they read the documents they were destroyed at once. They had been flushed down the convenience."

She added: "[b]I know George was rather furious afterwards. He felt he had been promised a certain code of behaviour and that had not worked out.[/b] I would say that George felt this was not a suitable man to be a peer."

From the telegraph - this is the widow of the chair of the committee.

As David Cameron tried in vain to draw a line under the affair yesterday, senior Tories expressed surprise at the revelations of Lord Ashcroft’s non-dom status. One said that the peer, who has helped to organise and bankroll the Conservatives’ election campaign, [b]had used “smoke and mirrors over a long period of time”.[/b] Another said that previous party leaders had adopted a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach.

Sir Hayden Phillips, a former senior civil servant who gave the peerage its final approval, told The Times that he had not offered official blessing for him to avoid taxes on his foreign income.

Both from the times.

Plenty more if you want it.

Shall we look at the documents and try and divine their intent rather than rely on hearsay, innuendo and off the record quotes. (Ashcroft like anyone involved in politics will have enemies on all sides, until he dies that is)

From the Appointment Committee's letter

More specifically, therefore, we considered the issue of residence, as this seems central to the exercise of responsibilities as a Working Peer.

So they don't want him living elsewhere when he is supposed to be working here.

From the same letter

We hope you will agree to invite Mr Hague to let us have firm evidence of an unequivocal decision by Mr Ashcroft that he will have taken up residence in the UK, on a permanent basis.

Which he gave and complied with, so he could carry out his responsibilities as a working peer.

One final quote:

I am sure Ashcroft will have had a far better understanding of the meaning of the undertaking than whoever dealt with it from the other side and therefore will have complied with it. However, it is quite likely that the wording will not achieve what was hoped. In this case, whilst the government's fault through incompetence, some mud will stick because he will have complied with the letter rather than spirit of the undertaking.

That was me, seems to sum it up quite nicely, although on reflection I don't see why Ashcroft should have had more onerous requirements placed on him than Lord Paul (and I believe others). No deceit, no lying.

Balderdash piffle and poppycock.

Clear evidence of deceit and lying and more to come. Direct quotes from principal players in this including Hagues that shows he was duped as well.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.................

Other than Hague's letter which I have dealt with, the only principal player quoted is Sir Hayden Phillips who said

Sir Hayden Phillips, a former senior civil servant who gave the peerage its final approval, told The Times that he had not offered official blessing for him to avoid taxes on his foreign income.

Well, I would not expect Senior Civil Servants to give official blessing to avoid taxes. It is a complete non quote.

Lord Thomson's wife was not a principal player, but it seems he couldn't find a reason to stop the appointment perhaps because he like yourself struggles to find any evidence despite the resources of the Guardian and the Times.