10 Comments

• iain dale 12th Nov '07 - 1:42pm

  Everything was fully declared while I was a candidate. I made sure it was. After the election, and after I was no longer the candidate I understand they were late in registering a donation. That was down to the local party agent and treasurer and abolsutely nothing to do with me, It was also nothing to do with Michael Ashcroft, so the story stands. Good try, though!

• Paul Walter 12th Nov '07 - 2:12pm

  So what you’re saying, Iain, if I read you correctly, is that the donation was not duly declared…is that right?

  du·ly (dl, dy-)
  adv.
  1. In a proper manner: a duly appointed official.
  2. At the expected time.

  “Ashcroft gave money to the Conservative Party in North Norfolk whilst Iain was their candidate, and the party broke the law by failing to declare it”

  Surely the phrase “gave money…whilst Iain was their candidate” applies to the donation to wich you refer doesn’t it? Surely the donation was given (as opposed to not duly declared) before election day, was it not?

  It would have been rather pointless of Lord Ashcroft to give a donation after election day, wouldn’t it have been?

• Chris Keating 12th Nov '07 - 2:41pm

  Iain saying “Everything has been duly declared” when he accepts that some of it wasn’t does rather take the piss.

  To be fair to him personally, it is normally down to constituency officials to handle donation reporting, not the current candidate or ex-candidate.

• Iain Dale 12th Nov '07 - 4:28pm

  Chris, thank you for being the only Liberal Democrat who seems to understand the law.

• Paul Walter 12th Nov '07 - 4:46pm

  I also understand and acknowledge that the candidate is not responsible for completing the returns after the election date. But, forgive me, Iain, that does not invalidate the two key statements here:

  1. The donation was not duly declared.

  and

  2. Ashcroft gave money to the Conservative Party in North Norfolk whilst Iain was their candidate.

  Could you please address your no doubt voluminous future comments on this thread to those specific points rather than answering other points which haven’t been raised by Mark Pack?

  It’s not too much to ask is it?

• Martin Land 12th Nov '07 - 5:42pm

  Methinks he doth protest too much

• Iain Dale 12th Nov '07 - 6:13pm

  Sigh, It was not Ashcroft’s responsibility to declare the donation, it was the responsibility of NNCA’s nominated officers. Surely even you cannot argue with that.

• Paul Walter 12th Nov '07 - 6:18pm

  Don’t disagree with that Iain (and I am very sorry that we silly LibDems are causing you to sigh.) But that is not what was being contested. You said “everything has been duly declared” but it quite clearly wasn’t because this one donation was quite clearly NOT “duly declared”.

• Chris Keating 12th Nov '07 - 7:08pm

  Iain, I don’t think anyone is arguing with the procedural point. It ws the constituency’s job to report it, they didn’t, they got slapped on the wrist.

  What Mark and others are complaining about is your belligerent ‘no-one’s done anything remotely wrong whatsoever’ tone when clearly people have made mistakes.

• Geoffrey Payne 12th Nov '07 - 10:29pm

  Gawd. Can’t this be settled in court? Or ignored completely?
  I don’t see why anyone should be the slightest bit interested until you hear the snap of the handcuffs.
  And on that I suspect it is a case of don’t hold your breathe.
  There is a political issue about party funding, which is a lot more interesting than speculating about speculation.