SunnySideUp

Fact remains that the Tories are looking to be elected ..... and they are shown to be as underhand, corrupt and untrustworthy as ever they were!

Splitpin

I note your complete failure to answer any of the points raised in my post. Unless you're busy scanning your tax returns of course.

Now, as to your comment above. If you're claiming that the Tories are underhand, corrupt and untrustworthy via their acceptance of donations from an individual who is non-domiciled for tax purposes, you also appear to be making exactly the same claims about Labour, given that they do exactly the same.

Indeed Labour solicit donations via shady third parties, so they seem to be a step ahead of the Tories in the underhand, untrustworthiness stakes.

SunnySideUp

Simple difference ...

Ashcroft is CENTRAL to the Tory Election Campaign - the Labour people are NOT!

Ashcroft should pay all his taxes in the UK if he is to influence - or try to - the voting intentions of millions of genuine UK taxpayers!!

It's a disgrace, it's a con and it is 100% typical Tory!!

I see that the Tories lead is falling even further ..... and this is why!!

The Zohan

Yup all parties squeaky clean including NL and Brown of course knew nothing...

Cash for Honours - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cash for Honours is the name given by some in the media to a political scandal in the United Kingdom in 2006 and 2007 concerning the connection between political donations and the award of life peerages. A loophole in electoral law in the United Kingdom means that although anyone donating even small sums of money to a political party has to declare this as a matter of public record, those loaning money at commercial rates of interest did not have to make a public declaration.

In March 2006, several men nominated for life peerages by then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, were rejected by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It was later revealed they had loaned large amounts of money to the governing Labour Party,[1] at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy. Suspicion was aroused by some that the peerages were a quid pro quo for the loans, and the incident was referred to the Metropolitan Police by Scottish National Party MP Angus MacNeil as a breach of the law against selling honours.[2] During the investigation various members of the Labour Party (including Tony Blair), the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were questioned, and Labour's Lord Levy was arrested and later released on bail. The investigation continued to have political impact throughout, as a range of stories continued to leak from the police investigation and damaged the government and Labour Party.

Following the unveiling of the scandal the Labour party had to repay the loans and was said to be in financial difficulty.[3] The police investigation was long and involved. It expanded to encompass potential charges of perverting the course of justice, apparently relating to suspected attempts to present evidence to the police in a particular way. At one point the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, obtained an injunction against the BBC, preventing them from reporting a story they claimed was in the public interest while he argued that the story was sub judice. This raised the possibility of a conflict of interest, the Attorney General being a political appointee. Tony Blair was interviewed three times as Prime Minister, though only as a witness and not under caution.

Leslie

Well they do say that they did not know, or only one of them did.

Apparently his donations have been investigated and been found to be lawful.

I do agree however that those in such a position in the political arena should be fully domiciled and paying UK taxes.

Les

Xx-IAN-xX

Thanks to Guido Paul, I have just caught up with the details of an exchange between Tom Bradby of ITV News and Peter Mandelson. His Lordness acknowledges that it is legitimate to ask about Labour non-doms – who they are and how much they have paid – although he doesn’t offer the answers himself. Here it is in full:

TB: ‘You talk about transparency, well we have been asking the Labour Party for some days whether your donors, like Ronnie Cohen, are non-doms or not. We haven’t got an answer, so perhaps you’d like to give us one sitting here.’

Lord M: ‘The Labour Party should give the information about its donors in the way that–’

TB: ‘It hasn’t.’

Lord M: ‘In the way that it is required to do and in response to legitimate questions.’

TB: ‘Let me ask you; is that a legitimate question? Be fair. Is it legitimate for us, given all this, to ask whether your donors are paying full tax on their worldwide income?’

Lord M: ‘I think it is perfectly legitimate.’

TB: ‘What’s the answer?’

Lord M: ‘How do I know what the answer is?’

And later:

TB: ‘Are you saying that all Labour party donors should be full tax payers; ie, paying tax on their worldwide income in this country? And if they aren’t, should the Labour Party pay the money back?’

Lord M: ‘What I’m saying is that Labour Party donors should be clear and upfront about what they are donating, what their domicile or tax status is, or whatever, just as donors who give money to the Conservative Party should be.’

We have since asked the Labour Party to confirm which of their donors are non-doms and have, once again, received no answer…


.
Kettle ,pot,black as the saying goes

SunnySideUp

Bold Tory assertions that the public isn't interested in the Michael Ashcroft scandal are misplaced arrogance.

A poll finds Labour has all but closed the gap in the marginal seats which will decide the election - the very seats the billionaire lord has tried to buy, bankrolling candidates in part with cash from Belize.

David Cameron will regret his dismissal of questions on the affair as "flogging a dead horse". This horse is galloping and every Tory attempt to put it down gives it fresher legs.

Why did the Tory leader not find out about Lord Ashcroft's tax-dodging status until a month ago, when William Hague discovered a few months earlier? In turn Mr Hague needs to explain why he failed to be honest much earlier with the public, and why he didn't tell his leader.

And Lord Ashcroft has explaining to do about fulfilling promises to obtain a peerage. The public is a better judge of this than the wet lettuce leaf Electoral Commission.

People are fed up with evasive politicians.

Source:- The Mirror

SunnySideUp

Key questions for the Conservatives and David Cameron over Michael Ashcroft's tax status:-

• Was William Hague aware at the time when Ashcroft was introduced to the Lords that he was a "long-term resident" rather than a "permanent resident"?

• When did David Cameron become aware that Ashcroft was not domiciled in the UK for tax purposes?

• What did Cameron do about this?

• Does the Conservative party believe that it is right for a non-dom to sit in the House of Lords?

• Why did Cameron insist that Zac Goldsmith ended his non-dom status immediately it became publicly known, and not make a similar demand of Ashcroft?

• If the Conservative party believes it is correct to change the law to ensure that only those domiciled in the UK for tax purposes should sit in either house, how does it justify Ashcroft's non-dom status for the last nine years?

• What does the party think the average UK taxpayer will make of Ashcroft's non-dom status for the nine years he has had a seat in parliament?

• A spokeswoman for Cameron said: "We are not responding. We've set out the position and been very transparent and any more questions should be directed to Lord Ashcroft."

The Tories are finished ...... which is a shame really, as Labour will certainly win now.

SunnySideUp

Labour have not been friends to the Unions!!

The Unions are just intelligent enough to realise that the Tories are for the Toffs!

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

I'm not responding any more, it's too much like arguing with a woman: Pete just waits for you to finish, then says the same stuff again.

unclebuck

I don't know why anybody bothers.

It's a complete waste of time trying to reason with somebody who is so prejudiced and blinded by their own stupidity.

SunnySideUp

Awwww, Unclebuck ... who is trying to reason with you, dear fellow?