This morning’s admission by the Tories’ single biggest donor, Lord (Michael) Ashcroft, that in the 10 years he has been a voting peer he has been registered as a non-dom to avoid paying tax on his non-UK income has generated a lot of comment today.
Let’s start with the facts. Lord Ashcroft, through his company Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd, is the biggest donor to the Conservative party, having given a total of £5,137,785.15. Lord Ashcroft made further personal donations of £111,726.09.
Lib Dem deputy leader Vince Cable named him as a ‘non-dom’ in the Commons in December 2009, asking Harriet Harman to introduce legislation “so that non-doms such as Lord Ashcroft can leave Parliament immediately”. The Sunday Times Rich List 2009 estimated Lord Ashcroft’s fortune at £1.1 billion.
Here’s what Chris Huhne had to say:
The Conservatives’ biggest donor is a tax-dodger from Belize who has not paid a penny of British tax on the vast bulk of his estimated £1.1bn fortune held offshore. This raises extraordinary questions about the judgement of successive Tory leaders – William Hague, Michael Howard and David Cameron – whose view seems to be that only little people should pay tax. The Tory party has been bought like a banana republic.”
And here’s what Lib Dem bloggers have been saying:
- Tories bought like a banana republic (birkdale focus)
- Is Lord Ashcroft’s un-taxed cash funding Cornwall Conservative campaigns? (Alex Folkes)
- Surprise, Surprise Ashcroft is a Non-Dom (Stephen Glenn)
- Tories largest donor IS a Non-Dom! (Qurban Hussain)
- Ashcroft – “Someone on your side did it too” is no defence (Mark Reckons)
- “Lord” Ashcroft admits he’s a non-dom (LibSync)
Please do add any links which I’ve missed, or published subsequent to this post.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Alan Bennett on Dudley Moore and jazz
West End ward surgeries today #dundeewestend
Speculation over Labour's benefit cuts
Joseph Bourke
Nonconformistradical
Tim Leunig
Craig Levene
Christian de Vartava
28 Comments
A box-ticking exercise for Chris Huhne
Is it legal to be a non-dom YES/NO
Is it legal for a non-dom to contribute to a party YES/NO
Is it legal for a non-dom to sit in the House of Lords YES/NO
Is it legal for a non-dom to be a Privy Counsellor YES/NO
It the answer to all these is YES, blame the government. They’ve been in power for 13 years.
Of course it’s legal. That’s not just missing the point, it’s running away from it, since the post was about pressuring the government to ban it.
A box ticking exercise for the Conservatives:
Is it double standards to campaign for stricter controls of benefits whilst allowing your biggest donor to avoid tax? YES/NO
Is it moral to hide your chief donor’s tax status from the British people for several years? YES/NO
Did you have to accept his donations? YES/NO
This raises a lot of difficult questions for the Conservatives. At least us Lib Dems only accept money in good faith that they’re not unethical donors… the Conservatives don’t seem to care what hypocricy they generate when they scrabble for their money.
Obviously it’s bad that Ashcroft gave assurances that he hasn’t fulfilled.
But as for the underlying question of accepting large donations from non-doms, how is what the Tories have done worse than what the Lib Dems did in accepting a large donation from Michael Brown? At least Ashcroft’s money wasn’t stolen!
Oh, yawn, Michael Brown. Was he given a peerage? No. Did he get any Lib Dem policy changes? No. Was he made Deputy Chairman of the Lib Dems? No. Was he put in charge of the Lib Dem General Election campaign? No. Did his money buy anything from the Lib Dems at all? No. Did the Lib Dems know he was a crook until after a long police investigation? No. Did the Lib Dems take a single penny from him after it was discovered he was a crook? No. Did the Lib Dems defend him? No. Did the Lib Dems try to cover up his crookedness? No.
Is there any comparison between a one-off donation five years ago and a decade-long conspiracy to consistently lie to cover up tax-dodging by a man who’s bought a political party? No.
Alex
That’s all very well, but my comment was in response to what Chris Huhne is actually quoted as saying above:
“The Conservatives’ biggest donor is a tax-dodger from Belize who has not paid a penny of British tax on the vast bulk of his estimated £1.1bn fortune held offshore.”
Doesn’t an exactly similar statement apply to the Lib Dems and Michael Brown – with the added feature that Brown’s money was stolen?
None of the parties can afford to be sanctimonious about this, because they have all acted similarly.
Anthony Aloysius St one of the issues is that since Cameron said that all peers, MPs and Tory candidates would not be non-doms he and his party have been asked about the status of Lord Ashcroft. They have said of course he isn’t a non-doms, of course he is paying his fair share. Even the dealings with Hague over just what he promised to do to accept his peerage is confused in the minds of senior members of the party.
This was not a one off donation, which as Alex pointed out above was the subject of a long police investigation to find out the status of one individual. This has been 10 years of telling someone to clean up his status while taking his money at the same time. Now that he has come clean about it is he going to change the way he behaves straight away. Well no actually, he’ll be waiting until the law is changed to make him do so. That may well be at the end of the next full term Conservative government for all we know, just so that he has enough of a tax break to help fund a re-election campaign.
Year for change! What about the last decade? Where is the change we can believe in.
BTW what is Zac Goldsmith’s current domicile status, has he got around to changing his yet. Don’t see a mention of that either since that broke in November.
How did Ashcroft make all his money. Anything to do with Banking or hedge funds?
It is very difficult to have a rational debate about this issue on online platforms, because Ashcroft owns or funds most of the senior Conservative blogosphere.
Tories – don’t you just love ’em?. Oh the arguments they are putting up trying to defend this guy – they don’t deserve power on this case alone.Sorry cant stay to hear the Tories yell at me , I’m off campaigning!!
It seems that Chris Huhne messed up here.
And before the attacks begin, no, I am not a conservative.
“This morning’s admission by the Tories’ single biggest donor, Lord (Michael) Ashcroft,”
I’m sure I heard that nice Mr Cameron telling Radio 5 that he wasn’t in their top 10 biggest donors over the weekend.
I just don’t know who to believe any more!
Stephen
Yes, of course, as I said in my first comment Ashcroft can legitimately be attacked for breaking his word about his intentions – though I think you’ll find that the Tories have generally been very careful _not_ to say “of course he isn’t a non-dom”, but instead to dodge the question. Hague seems to have been careless in this respect.
But what both you and Alex seem to be saying is that you don’t object to parties receiving large donations from non-doms – it’s the other stuff about Ashcroft you don’t like. Unfortunately that’s not what Huhne actually said.
For what it’s worth I think what Huhne said was right. It is unacceptable for parties to receive large donations from essentially foreign sources. But I’d respect that line a lot more if he were also willing to say “We have got this wrong ourselves in the past, but we now have a firm policy of refusing such donations”.
“Yes, of course, as I said in my first comment Ashcroft can legitimately be attacked for breaking his word about his intentions …”
And having read a bit more of the coverage, he even seems to be denying that he did that…
Surely, the ambit of public scrutiny must fall on the Peers via new laws to stop their ability to escape public attention on their own doings?
We have another price of sublime hypocrisy from this lack lustre Government in their febrile attempt to clean up post `Expenses Scandal’. The pieces of `clean up’ legislation still permit `Non-Dom’ status nett contributors to Election Campaigns/Political Party coffers .
The Lord Ashcroft saga has been evident over 10 years,apparently,but no challenges have been made, possibly, as Labour also have large `non dom’ status donors ..
I support Nick Clegg`s verdict on Lord Ashcroft and that any big donor to any political party should live,work and pay taxes in the UK, as they should owe a prima facie duty of respect to British people first.
If someone is bank rolling a Political Party with potential to win Government. i.e. Tory Party , then that person ought to be held publically and legally accountable to live in the UK as their main residence and not be allowed to register, as a tax exempt refugee for an overseas fortune aka Ashcroft.
This kind of behaviour is morally reprehensible to all British tax payers, in any event.
“I support Nick Clegg`s verdict on Lord Ashcroft and that any big donor to any political party should live,work and pay taxes in the UK, as they should owe a prima facie duty of respect to British people first.”
Again, that sounds good to me, but it’s a bit pointless if you can get round the rules by using a company to give a donation.
Its completely unacceptable to me for any Non-Dom to be donating large sums to any UK political party
It seems a simple principal that only individuals should be allowed to donate to political parties (surely self evident that businesses should be banned from making donations seeing as they are there to make a profit for their shareholders and so must be expecting something in return for their ‘donations’) and that all such individuals should be paying UK tazes on all their income and live in the UK (ok limit up to £50 to allow for overseas membership of political parties).
I’d also limit donations to a maximum of £50k person. We’d soon have a much leveler plaing field in British Politics without the need for any big donors or goverment funding as all political parties would be in the same boat.
It seem the Tories and Labour just don’t get the idea that the British Public don’t like the idea of rich people tying to buy the election and/or having massive influence over Political Parties that are aiming to form the next Government
So we all agree that we do not like what Ashcroft has been doing, so why has Labour not changed the law?
It is a bit rich them going on about it when they if they wanted to they could have changed the law.
In law Ashcroft has done nothing wrong, and Chris Huhne was out of court with his “The Conservatives’ biggest donor is a tax-dodger”. I see Jack Straw is back tracing on his first statement about it.
Whose money is Lord Ashcroft using to buy the election? Is it his own money, or does it come from North American billionaires who cannot donate directly because they are foreign nationals? The trouble is, Scotland Yard cannot simply turn up in Belize and inspect his books.
While we are on the subejct of Baby Jams Goldsmith, I hope that Susan Kramer and her team will tell the people or Richmond Park how his father made his money. Some of it came from selling jam, granted, but much more was “earned” by asset-stripping companies and putting people out fo work.
But what both you and Alex seem to be saying is that you don’t object to parties receiving large donations from non-doms – it’s the other stuff about Ashcroft you don’t like.
I’m surprised you didn’t claim we’d not explicitly said we’d stopped beating our wives. What a pathetic excuse for a personal attack rather than answering what I actually said.
It’s the other stuff about Ashcroft that makes it much worse – but, no, as I’ve been tweeting all day, no non-doms should be allowed to fund political parties. Full stop. But I don’t know of any who fund the Lib Dems, and there are none who’ve lied about their status or their political positions for a decade while the Lib Dems have colluded in their deceit for money. And I was answering the exact words you’d written, not all the ones you harangued me for not replying to because you didn’t say them.
I don’t know of any non-doms who currently give their tax-dodged money to the Lib Dems – if so, I’ll say they should pay their taxes, and we shouldn’t take their money until then. Do you, or was it just hot air?
I don’t know of any non-doms who have been given a peerage by the Lib Dems or are standing as a Lib Dem PPC – if so, I’ll condemn them and say they should stop tax-dodging tomorrow or stand down. Do you, or was it just hot air?
I don’t know of any non-doms who have been given policy changes by the Lib Dems or leading internal positions by the Lib Dems – if so, I’ll condemn them and say the policy and their position should be suspended immediately. Do you, or was it just hot air?
I don’t know of any non-doms whose status the Lib Dems have obfuscated in interviews to keep pocketing the cheques – if so, I’ll condemn them and whatever Lib Dem covered up for them. Do you, or was it just hot air?
If all you can keep saying is, a one-off donation five years ago where the Lib Dems didn’t know the guy was dodgy is exactly the same as a constant funnel of cash over a decade with lies to cover up that the Tories do know the guy who owns them is dodgy, then the rest of us who live in the present and can point to how the Lib Dems have actually voted on party finances, again and again, will just think you’re a troll.
To remind you, unlike the Tories – who’ve only suddenly discovered probity-in-the-future-but-not-today now they’re rolling in cash, but have been voting against it for years and years – the Lib Dems in Parliament have voted every time to clean up donations. So, again, where’s the equivalence?
And, yep, I’d vote to stop companies being used to funnell overseas donations, too, and suspect the Lib Dems say the same – if they don’t, they should. OK?
Does the Inland Revenue demand that Non Doms spend only 90 nights a year in the UK? Yes or No. Does Ashcroft spend more than the limit in the UK? Yes or No.
….if the tax laws are being broken, how come nobody lifts the lid on this?
And how about this one:
“Its my patriotic duty to replace Gordon Brown and this Government” – David Cameron. Er, funded by pumping millions into the marginal seats with dosh from off-shore by someone who dodgy taxes, and who got his peerage because of the dosh he has given to the Conservatives. That’s Tory patriotism for you.
Alex
What on earth is all this stuff about “personal attacks” and “haranguing”? I haven’t attacked anyone, and I haven’t harangued anyone. I do think the hectoring tone of your latest comment leaves a bit to be desired, though.
Anyhow, my point is simply that it is inconsistent for Chris Huhne to attack the Tories for accepting a large donation from a non-dom when the Lib Dems have done just the same in the past.
It might be different if the party had said “We were wrong to do that kind of thing, and we’re not going to do it again”. But on the contrary, the party’s line all along has been that it did nothing wrong in accepting Brown’s donation.
You can’t have it both ways.
http://acomfortableplace.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-that-what-its-all-about-then.html
In reply to Anthony Aloysius St,
Glad to hear that you don’t believe in attacking or haranguing anyone.
I’m also pleased to hear that you believe it is “unacceptable for parties to receive large donations from essentially foreign sources”.
That gives rise to an obvious question. How can we stop it happening?
While it would be sensible to legislate there is a simpler and easier route to freeing UK politics of non-doms, not only in the longer-term but in the short-term (and even before the starting pistol is fired for the General Election).
The three party leaders, Brown, Cameron and Clegg, should be invited to make the following declaration (I’m quite happy for Jeremy Paxman to issue the invitation in the next week or so):
My party will not accept donations or contributions in kind from anyone who is non-domiciled for tax purposes. My party will require all its party officers, candidates and prospective candidates to give an undertaking that they pay UK taxes on all of their income and wealth. Any donors, party officers, candidates and prospective candidates who cannot give this undertaking will no longer be acceptable as officers, candidates, prospective candidates or donors to my party. I make this commitment in public and have given instructions that it should take immediate effect.
I am prepared to take Mr Brown, Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg’s at their word on this – if they are prepared to give it.
And I propose, as a test of both capacity and willingness to commit to non-dom free UK politics, the following thought experiment. Just imagine, for a brief moment, how easy you would find it to give such a public undertaking if you were in the shoes of: (a) Brown, (b) Cameron OR (c) Clegg.
Now I think you have the answer to electors (and your own) entirely legitimate questions about the comparability of the UK’s principal political parties when it comes to pursuing and accepting questionable donations from donors whose involvement in UK society does not pass even the most elementary of tests.
Ed
Thanks for that.
It all sounded very reasonable – up until the last couple of paragraphs when it turned into another exercise in political point-scoring. Oh well …
is it acceptable for non doms to have funded chris huhne’s leadership campaign.?
Clegg takes a similar line:
“Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said: “I think if you are seeking to influence the outcome of the next general election… then it is wholly wrong that you basically seek to pay taxes only partially in this country.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8544547.stm
The report adds dryly:
“But his party has confirmed Tory claims that they have taken donations from three “non-doms” – Bhanu, Sudhir and Dhruv Choudhrie.”