Tories finally come clean on Ashcroft tax status
Party's deputy chairman has 'fulfilled the obligations imposed on him'
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
STEVE BURTON/PA
The former Tory leader William Hague, left, and his wife Ffion with Lord Ashcroft in 2005. Mr Hague said the peer is now a UK taxpayer
enlarge
The Conservative Party sought to defuse the controversy over its deputy chairman, Lord Ashcroft, yesterday by confirming that he is paying tax in Britain.
William Hague, who, when he was Tory leader, nominated the billionaire businessman for a peerage, said he had been told by Lord Ashcroft that he had met the obligations placed on him when he was appointed in 1999. This included a promise to take up permanent residence in the UK. Lord Ashcroft, who has extensive business interests in Belize, is one of the Tories' biggest donors but would have to be resident in Britain because of a ban on "foreign donations". He heads the Tories' campaign in marginal seats.
Asked on the BBC's Andrew Marr programme whether Lord Ashcroft now pays tax in Britain, Mr Hague replied: "My conclusion, having asked him, is that he fulfilled the obligations that were imposed on him at the time that he became a peer." He added: "I imagine that [paying taxes in the UK] was the obligation that was imposed on him."
Two years ago, David Cameron said the obligations on Lord Ashcroft were "being met" but the Tories and their deputy chairman have been reluctant to discuss his tax status.
However, Mr Hague's clarification failed to satisfy Labour. Denis MacShane, a former minister and MP for Rotherham, said: "William Hague's assertion that the Tories' biggest backer is now, finally, resident in the UK raises more questions than it answers. For many years, Lord Ashcroft has been donating to the Tories through his companies but for how long has he been eligible to do it in his own name?" He added: "Lord Ashcroft appears to be having a huge influence over the Conservatives' election campaign and foreign policy. David Cameron needs to demonstrate transparency by revealing when Lord Ashcroft became resident. "
Mr Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, also urged Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority not to dilute the new blueprint for MPs' expenses published last week by Sir Christopher Kelly's Committee on Standards in Public Life. The authority, which has the final say, has made clear it will not be bound by the Kelly proposals and may make changes. The chairmen of the two bodies are due to meet this week.
Mr Hague said: "It would be wrong to rewrite was has now been produced. We need public confidence again in the MPs' expenses system."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Not like you to wind people up !
Anybody who thinks that is unequivocal needs a rethink, as I don't for one second believe that what William Hague 'imagines' is necessarily consistent with the truth, more likely it's consistent with what can be plausibly asserted.
Politicians are fond of imagining all kinds of things that fit with their preferred version of 'the truth'... I'd prefer to see some input from the Inland Revenue, how about a tax return?
it's not e x a c t l y what I would call coming clean; politicians NEVER do that
Indeed, pinhut, it is not " imagination " that's needed here, but facts and not too many Tories are over burdened with that quality, except when dealing with their expenses, but facts, not Westminster facts; real facts, ie the actual truth, not patronising , shabby spin .
Is that asking too much, it's a simple question, is LORD Ashcroft, paying his fair share of taxes, as we all have to do or we get jumped on by the Inland Revenue, like Stukka bombers or not, Haig? ( don't be vague, ask for Haigh, remember that anyone ? )
As for Macshane he is quite right to get himself all in a lather, after all, these kinds of shifty, seedy goings on don't happen in LABOURLAND do they . No sir
Sorry about the lack of space between my first and second paragraphs vhawk it does blur things a bit
Absolutely right, drofrub, if that's coming clean, as the headline claims, I"m glad the Tories are not being evasive...
You may answer yes, no, probably, I think so, I have to ask my boss David, is this a trick question, could you repeat the question, I am glad you asked me that, or I will ask the pig when it lands.
Thank you William for your usual conclusive answer
However, Ashcroft may well have performed a soft landing back in the UK, because the Belize natives are starting to turn nasty. Dean Barrow, prime minister of Belize since February 2008, is not Ashcroft fan.
Hard to think of even one, in fact ...
Till now.
I'm not holding my breath.
Alan Douglas
Re holding breath : go on, go on, go on...
However where people contribute significant amounts to party funds there is good reasons why some form of due diligence should be devised to ensure the donation is within guidelines saving embarrassment & undue influence by those who? I was going to say donate for all the wrong reasons but surely thats what all major donations stand accused of ie unions, etc etc.
The point is does Marr know or is he being at best mischevious or just slinging mud in the hope some sticks & with ears like his..............................
Oddly UKIP have had a donation taken from them, not returned to the donor but the exchequer. The reason for the decision the donor was not on the electoral roll when donating, he was the year previous & the year after, the reason he was not on the roll, seemingly an administration error YES the BIG 3 who so many defend do as they please yet somehow UKIP & the donor lose out because of an error by the establishment, I'm not a UKIP supporter but have to say the decision was very equitable....... I'm sure?
It really is time for the voter to wake up to the outrageous decisions that apply to all but the 647 MP's and their parties, but the expenses scandal has shown there is one rule for them & another for the rest, I do hope the electorates memory remains in place for the next general election, I for one will not take the party line this time round & will look to vote for the independent candidate (if available)
Has Marr given the Labour party the same experience with their overseas contingency, didn't think so, or Lib/Dems on their £2:5 million, didn't think so, has he highlighted the removal of £330k from the UKIP account for what really was an oversight by administrators within the public sector, didn't think so.
I have no problems with the asking of the Ashcroft question, I just wish questions were asked of other parties with the same 'aggression'.
Incidentally I understood the Hague reply as Ashcroft fulfilled the legal requirement, Hague can only take this as read thus it is the only reply he can give, although I would agree it was somewhat Mandelsonesque.
"Slinging mud ", do you mean like you " pinko journo's, personal insults " ears like his " ? ?
This was not a rhetorical question...
A prime example has been the Cameron/Lisbon Treaty doodah & his (I'm not his greatest fan) treatment by the media, he has been vilified for not doing what he can't do anyway, I'm unsure if the media has noticed the Tories have not been in power for 12 years + thus it was not in his remit to offer the referendum.
Yet Labour who promised the referendum in their manifesto for the last election failed disgracefully to fulfill this pledge, with all polls showing 80% + of the UK wanting a voice, where has the media been for the last 4 years during the run up to the Treaty? where were they last year when the demand for the referendum was in truth overpowering? Seemingly they were right up the backsides of the Labour government thus my statement pinko journo's, & I feel the above gives some credence to my previous post.
The Ashcroft situation has been around for years but come the 'run in' to the election I suspect many a pinko will be highlighting this whilst leaving the questions on Labour funding firmly in the can. The £2:5 million problem of the Lib/Dems is a far more pertinent 'fact' as is the odd decision with UKIP yet neither have been given the prominence of the 'assumption' that all is not well with the Ashcroft/Tory thingy. I think pinko journo is a far less insulting phrase than what some would use for such inequitable reporting/media.
The big ears thing was purely an observation with no offer of a referendum, I'm sure the majority would have sided with the statement but as democracy/public opinion has no place with either this government or the media, & if the Lisbon Treaty & its ratification are a guide I can only assume the overwhelming majority will think he has big ears but will not be allowed to voice this opinion?
I watched the 'Later with Jools' your son attended & speaking of public opinion if there was ever a referendum:- Is Yoko as mad as a box of frogs, Yes/No, I believe the result would enter the Guinness Book Records as the largest Yes majority ever known whilst going totally unheeded by the establishment, there I go again with the insults its almost eerie.
P.S. Re: our recent discussion & the BBC, I have since attempted to reclaim my BBC licence fee as I had purchased a 'Freeview' television, given this claim I could not reasonably be expected to pay for something that was 'free' the magistrate had a slightly different view & asked if I was related to Yoko before sentencing me to a rather ill fitting & seemingly reversible jacket.
This last couple of weeks has seen Hague doing overtime, what with Europe, expenses and now this silly nonsense.
Surely he must have looked into the mirror this morning and have been embarrassed.
I wonder why the Conservative Treasurer can't write to HMRC and ask for confirmation that Ashcroft is acting within the law. No tax details are necessary to be revealed.
Cover up?
Go to BBC iPlayer, down load it make your own transcript
You know, has anyone ever found a more generic, none commital answer?!
I'd say it's just a smart way of saying "probably not"
"Yes, he is paying tax".
When they are talking vague, generalities like "as far as I'm aware, he's meeting his obligations as a peer".
That's a surefire answer that he probably isn't paying tax as he should.
I didn't hear Marr's interview with Hague, but this report suggests that the Right Honourable Member for Richmond was so cautious and non-committal in his responses that we really know no more then we did previously as to where the good Baron pays his taxes and, for most of the year, lays his head.
But, in the real world, taxes, and the regulations around them, are for "little people", as Leona Helmsley memorably said, and so, I imagine, are the rules around non-residents funding UK political parties. Baron Ashcroft may well be so rich that no one in power will be able, or even wish, to challenge his bona fides.
I like the Lib Dems, and I don't reckon Michael Brown's subsequent conviction required them to repay the £2.4M that they accepted in good faith - especially given that, having spent it, they were hardly in a position to do so! I loathe UKIP, but nevertheless think that they had an extraordinarily hard deal over the donations from Mr Bown and others. It does seem odd that Ashcroft's position remains so ambivalent without any adverse consequences for the Tories, while UKIP's very financial survival is threatened by a vengeful Electoral Commission for what appears to be an oversight on the part of a donor whose residence, and taxpayer status, in the UK seems to be unquestioned.
To me, the lesson is that a cynical rot runs right through both main parties, and has done for years; and that simply voting every few years for each in turn does nothing to improve the quality of our political system.