Leading article: A troubling lack of transparency
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Lord Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, is an individual with an unusual level of influence in our national political life. The businessman turned politician has been a generous donor to Conservative Party coffers for almost three decades.
And in recent times, he has been using his private wealth to particular political effect, channelling large sums directly into Conservative associations around the country which are fighting for Labour-held marginal seats. This appears to be having an effect. The Conservatives are polling better in the constituencies which have benefited from Lord Ashcroft's largesse than others.
But how much do we really know about this powerful donor? He rarely gives interviews, or makes public appearances. And his business affairs are opaque. When Lord Ashcroft was awarded his peerage in 2000, it was on the understanding that he would become a UK taxpayer. But today he refuses to answer questions about his tax status. He is also facing an Electoral Commission investigation into his donations to the Conservative Party.
And now doubts have been raised about his conduct in the Central American nation of Belize, where Lord Ashcroft was formerly a resident and where he continues to have considerable business interests. In August the Prime Minister of Belize, Dean Barrow, denounced the peer for using his wealth "to subjugate an entire nation". And, as we report today, there is still considerable political resentment at the peer's influence there.
Meanwhile, Lord Ashcroft's influence in Britain is taking on new forms. He recently acquired two successful political websites. The peer claims his interest in the sites will be purely entrepreneurial, rather than party political. But several of the contributors to one of these sites were not comforted by this reassurance, choosing to resign.
We should not jump to the conclusion that there is something inappropriate about Lord Ashcroft's influence on British politics. But public life needs transparency, particularly where large influxes of money are concerned. At the moment, such transparency is lacking with regard to Lord Ashcroft.
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
Is he domiciled in the UK?
Does he pay tax in the UK?
Is he on the voters' roll in the UK?
Is it legal for him to provide donations to the Conservative Party?
I hope you are going to be as holier than thou about dodgy donors to the Labour Party.
When they do that, they should remember Michael, Baron Ashcroft. So should we.
We should particularly remember his wealth: £1,110 million according to last year's "Sunday Times Rich List"; the continued ambiguity as to where he lives and pays his taxes, despite the undertaking that he gave to William Hague when he was offered his peerage; his enormous donations and loans to the Conservative party, which are counted in millions; and the unresolved obscurity and controversy which surround his business interests.
Angryman9 above has an entirely valid point. What he calls "dodgy donors" are by no means all Conservative party supporters; New Labour too has its band of rich donors. Indeed, if you vote for one or other of the two major parties, you're simply choosing between one elite and clutch of oligarchs and another. Of course, their election propaganda machines are at pains to give an illusion of choice, to make the two parties sound different from one another. Democracy, like justice, has to be seen to be done.
But the underlying reality of both major parties is much the same, which is why, increasingly, people do at least recognize that, whoever you vote for and whoever "gets in", nothing fundamental changes - there's just some superficial rearrangement of the political decor and furniture. We hear these days about politics being "ideology-free", and, compared with how things used to be, that's a true enough assertion. But in reality politics is never ideology-free: something always governs the direction of policy.
And in Britain, that's the interests of large national and international corporations and their fabulously wealthy proprietors and boards of directors. Men like Baron Ashcroft, who like to keep their affairs, as far as possible, in the shadows and well out of the public eye.
Given the various abuses of power that this country has suffered under the 2 main parties over the last 30 years, I just don't understand why more people aren't concluding that the Lib Dems should at least be given a chance to prove that they're different. I'm not naive enough to assume that they are - I just think they should be given a chance.
That was such a refreshing change that it seemed worth my vote and, later, thinking that lighting a candle was better than just moaning and cursing the darkness, I let them persuade me to join the party. I've stuck with them since, become an activist, and even stood once for the council for them.
You're right - they're not perfect. You can find some who are just out of themselves, one or two mindless, yah-boo political hacks, and even some total s**ts among them now and then. But, in my experience at any rate, all of these are fairly rare. Complacency when they do get power is a bit more common, and I've known some Lib Dem councillors that could do with a bit of effective opposition to shake them up.
But what you don't find - or at least I haven't - is the mindless politics of the tribe that so often characterizes the two major parties, nor the arrogance and condescension, the superior elitism and the effective contempt for the electorate. And the vast majority care about what they're doing, and do their best for their communities.
So I stick with them. Bearing in mind what we've had from Tory and Labour in the last two decades and a half, and given that, at least in England, they're the only effective opposition show in town, I think, like you, that they're worth a go.
Is this just envy, or something else?
If Ashcroft says: I support the Conservatives, so I give them money - how much more transparent do we want him to be? Careful: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
PS: How many of those asking him questions about his tax status have published their own tax records?
If the influence on our political processes of super-national and opaque commercial conglomerates, and the individuals who front them, doesn't bother you, don't you think it should? Who knows what drives Murdoch, with his media interests, and the political line that his papers express?
Murdoch is even simpler: his main interest is profit for his enterprises and he gives to whichever party he thinks will help at the time. Seems pretty transparent to me.
My wife gives money to support the Liberal Democrats. Should we publish factless inuendo about her?
Does your wife live and pay taxes in the UK, like the rest of us? The old cry was "no taxation without representation", but "no representation without taxation" matters too ... The Inland Revenue can't penalize Lord Ashcroft if, quite legitimately, he neither lives nor pays taxes here, but he is then susceptible to legislation about the funding of political parties.
Unless the UK is his main residence and centre of interest, why should his money be used to finance election campaigns aimed at securing the victory of one political party over another? People can, at least legally, only use the NHS for non-emergency care if they live here and their "centre of interest" is deemed to be here. Why, if it isn't, should anyone be entitled to pay vast sums to swing elections?
But, nonetheless, you're right - political parties need to think twice, and then a few times again, before they let themselves be dazzled by the largesse of immensely wealthy individuals and corpotate bodies. There's always an agenda, and the risk that unforeseen consequences arising from acceptance of the gift will spring back and bite them ...