Will we ever get to the truth about Ashcroft's tax status - Page 2

Sirius · 09-02-2010, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris9991

There is also a double page spread in the Daily Mirror today (pg 10-11) which alledges some of the smart practises that he undertakes.

Link of articles

http://www.mirror.co.uk/search.cfm?what=ashcroft

Mirror = Labour rag, see i can use the status of papers when i need to as well

Flyboy · 09-02-2010, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul M

Who the hell is "Ashcroft" ?

He is the Conservative Party's deputy chairman, who is bestest buddies with William Hague and "Dave." He was elevated to the House of Lords under the strict understanding that he becomes a UK domicile. Whenever the questions is asked regarding his status, the Conservative party seems to be rather evasive. Despite Willie Hague's assurance on Sunday morning that he would not be evasive and obfuscatory.

"Dave" has said that party memebrs would be sacked if they didn't declare their domicility as being in the UK. I wonder what plans he has for Lord Ashcroft?

**Stuart** · 09-02-2010, 18:39

Politicians apparently selling titles, then being evasive? Now, who does that put me in mind of?

chris9991 · 09-02-2010, 18:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

Mirror = Labour rag, see i can use the status of papers when i need to as well

I know it's a Labour rag - sometimes the front page makes me laugh as they try to spin a story as positive for Labour.

**Hugh** · 09-02-2010, 18:56

On the non-dom contributors front, a Guardian article from last year.

Quote:

A much-publicised law designed to stop wealthy tax exiles bankrolling political parties has been quietly dropped until after a general election, the Observer has learned.
The disclosure means that key Labour donors such as Lakshmi Mittal as well as Tory donor Lord Ashcroft will still be able to pump millions of pounds into the forthcoming election campaign, despite promises to curb the influence of wealthy backers.....

....The Political Parties and Elections Act was given royal assent two weeks ago. It included an amendment which was supposed to limit donations from individuals who are domiciled abroad for tax purposes – so called "non-doms" – to no more than £7,500 a year.

It was finally voted through after months of behind-the-scenes battles between Labour backbenchers, who wished to curtail the power of donors, and ministers who were minded that their party receives significant support from "non-doms" such as Gordon Brown's confidante Lord Paul, and the packaged food tycoon Sir Gulam Noon. Last month Jack Straw, the justice secretary, accepted the amendment amid a flurry of press releases and briefings , claiming that only those who pay all their income tax in Britain will be able to give significant funds to political parties.

But the electoral commission, the political watchdog charged with implementing the law, told the Observer this weekend that the law is not expected to be enforced until the summer of 2010 – weeks after the expected date of the next general election. A commission spokesman said that officials are waiting for Straw to lay an order before parliament before the law can be implemented. "In the meantime, the rules will stay as before and someone who is non-domiciled abroad can still donate," he said.

Sirius · 09-02-2010, 18:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris9991

I know it's a Labour rag - sometimes the front page makes me laugh as they try to spin a story as positive for Labour.

I know. I just had to post that as a certain poster in this thread seem to indicate we cannot debate a subject if the source is dubious as far as he seems to think, I class the Mirror as dubious so it therefor means end of debate

Osem · 09-02-2010, 22:53

Quite - Those tabloid rags aren't always unreliable it seems now then...

Flyboy · 09-02-2010, 23:51

It seems that that the question remains avoided, amid attempts to divert the attention away from Ashcroft. The point is, Cameron made specific commitments to sack members of his shadow cabinet as well as the rest of the party, if they did not pay all their income tax in the UK. Is this yet another failure of his, to yet again fall at the feet of his very rich friends?

Cobbydaler · 09-02-2010, 23:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

It seems that that the question remains avoided, amid attempts to divert the attention away from Ashcroft. The point is, Cameron made specific commitments to sack members of his shadow cabinet as well as the rest of the party, if they did not pay all their income tax in the UK. Is this yet another failure of his, to yet again fall at the feet of his very rich friends?

Please, please can you take off your ruby red coloured glasses?

There are politicians of all colours who are playing the system, fiddling expenses, avoiding taxes etc, etc...

You are patently focusing on one party for your own reasons.

Flyboy · 10-02-2010, 00:02

So, what? I have a right to an opinion, do I not?

Cobbydaler · 10-02-2010, 00:11

Didn't say you hadn't.

If you want to play party politics then start a thread called 'Vote for Labour' (whatever their track record)...

**Derek** · 10-02-2010, 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, what? I have a right to an opinion, do I not?

Yep you do. And everyone else has the right to flag up their own particular opinions as well as long as it doesn't infringe the sites T&C's

Flyboy · 10-02-2010, 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

Didn't say you hadn't.

If you want to play party politics then start a thread called 'Vote for Labour' (whatever their track record)...

I have started a thread regarding a question about a specific subject. I don't see the point of starting a thread called, "Vote for Labour," because that would leave only one alternative, which is that you and and the rest of the Tories would have to start a thread called, "Vote Tory," as that is all that will be allowed. Or are you suggesting that anyone who opposes the Tories are allowed to be on only one thread and everybody else can start whatever thread they like? Are those who have a different opinion, to all those on the right, not allowed the freedom of voicing their opposition.

frogstamper · 10-02-2010, 05:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris9991

I know it's a Labour rag - sometimes the front page makes me laugh as they try to spin a story as positive for Labour.

Of course Tory rags like the Daily Hate, Express, Sun and Telegraph wouldn't dream of running a leader which blatantly favours the Tories.

Sirius · 10-02-2010, 07:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I have started a thread regarding a question about a specific subject. I don't see the point of starting a thread called, "Vote for Labour," because that would leave only one alternative, which is that you and and the rest of the Tories would have to start a thread called, "Vote Tory," as that is all that will be allowed. Or are you suggesting that anyone who opposes the Tories are allowed to be on only one thread and everybody else can start whatever thread they like? Are those who have a different opinion, to all those on the right, not allowed the freedom of voicing their opposition.

And yet you were asking the other day WHY we were debating something that you had decided did not warrant it based on you view of the source.