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….

Did he actually lie, yes or no answer?

not at all kimbers.

TJ those are editorials written today.

Apart from possibly the reference: "At the time Mr Hague said that the decision would “benefit the Treasury tens of millions a year in tax”. " 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 than just his UK income 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 all 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 lie?

^ 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”. The natural and ordinary meaning of his memorandum is that he was coming home to pay taxes. It is odd that he has now come clean.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7046012.ece

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 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8keZbZL2ero

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

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 "the pure ranting of the jealous left" and that he is "upset simply because he's bank rolling the tory machine"

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 so important, that they placed it on the front page.

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

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. His behaviour in concealing it should be a matter of public concern.

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, he gave very public assurances about aspects of his life as a condition of entering the House of Lords 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.

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

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.

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. Mr Cameron should thank him for this service, and ask him to return to the private life that he so clearly craves.

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 "the pure ranting of the jealous left"

😕

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.

The above is taken from his autobiography, which I downloaded tonight, which seems to detail a long running dispute with the Times so I think it is fair to say that there is a bit of history there and Rupert Murdoch will not be too surprised, wouldn't want to shock him at his time of life.

"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 the pure rantings of the jealous left.

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

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.

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 but the deceit.

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.