Cameron defends Ashcroft handling

So Nick,

now that you've written 5 blogs recently on the Ashcroft/Conservatives and none on the Labour non-doms; maybe to address the BBC impartiality you should perhaps do as David Cameron suggests and "go after the Labour Party and ask questions about their donors and where they pay tax."

How 'bout that eh ?

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

NIck why are you still going on about Lord Ashcroft? David Cameron was trying to talk today about job creation. It may have escaped your knowledge but the UK has to create at least two million private sector jobs to replace those at risk in the public sector when the government rebalances its finances. That is what David Cameron was trying to talk about today and it is what you should be concentrating on.

Have just heard your report on radio as well , Nick, and I have to say the man has a point.You said on radio that you doubt whether this will be the end of questions re-Ashcroft but that seems to me to be up to a media which appears to do Peter Mandelson's bidding. It was refreshing that Andrew Marr pressed Harriet Harman on Labour's numerous non-doms and her reaction demonstrated how surprised and unprepared Labour politicians are to have this particular issue raised with them when they are so keen to raise it about others.

Why is the BBC so obsessed with this story?

By the way I was just watching BBC news 24 which was looking at the poll of marginal seats. The news reader pointed to the fact that "only" 56% of voters wanted change and that that was "nowhere near enough" for Cameron. Well if that isn't a biased comment I don't know what is - 56% sounds pretty good to me!!

What a deeply disturbing man this David Cameron is. Clearly desperate to claim 'power' for himself and his super-rich friends no matter what.
I find it extraordinary that so many people seem ready to vote for this kind of dubious and overt elitist despite his obvious detachment from reality as experienced by the vast majority of people living in the UK. Just remember voters: He'll happily cut taxes for himself and his 'exclusive friends', and then he'll cut services, jobs, and pensions and the like to leave everyone else 'out to dry'... 'Compassionate Conservatism' for the 21st Century! Here! Here!

Nick,

Why don't you ever question our Governments decisions with such detail and passion? You last post from the 5th was like the cat that got the cream (Closing of the polls). Of relevance here why aren't you raising concerns about the 6 or 7 other Labour non-doms? The huge expenses they've claimed from the taxman etc? Why have the BBC continued to re-hash a story currently 8 days old and counting. Why have you again decided that what (Lord) Mandleson said on Sunday in the Guardian as validity for you to question Cameron as weak? A man twice thrown out of UK politics for dubious practise himself.

You know I really am not sure how I feel about this election outcome? My heart tells me I sick of Labour and want rid after 13 years. However, my head tells me I hope you and the BBC succeed in your mission and Labour spend 5 dark years reaping what they've sewn.

Tough one.

I asked the Conservative leader several times whether Ashcroft might "get a job in your government?".

Why Nick.

Didnt get the answer you'd been itching for the first time?


Never mind. Nothing new here.

You ever gonna get round to asking Lord Paul how he did a Maxwell on the Armstrong Group Pension fund and yet still manages to personally bankroll Gordon? Oh, and still remain a non-dom, not paying full UK tax on his worldwide income?

No, course you wont. Thought not.

Bet Harriet Harman wishes she'd have been interviewed by you rather than that awkward cuss Marr on Sunday morning just gone, eh?

Never mind, not to worry. Not long til May 7th and the next job.

Hows the writing of Gordons Memoirs coming along?

Got past Chapter1? "It Started In America And I Wasnt There At The Time".

your obsession with Ashcroft is so patently biased. Lord Sainsbury was a doner and a minister for years, but did not face the scrutiny you gave Cameron on the possibility of Ascroft being a minister. The LIb Dem's biggest doner is a fraudster on the run who used his criminal proceeds to pay the Lib dems and pay for their private jets, but this never gets a mention. Ascroft is not a criminal but you view him as a shady figure. You so clearly dance to Labour's tune.

and next blog post will be interviewing gordon brown on labour's non dom paymasters and searching questions about union payments that labour have received?

ill not hold my breath...

Your transcript is missing a key turn of phrase - after "you'll not be surprised to know" he says "If I win the election" - as you can see in the video version.

A telling slip from a man who has had to persistently shake off accusations that he has made this into a two-man "presidential" election and that his party is a one-man band...

Good that the truth about Ashcroft and the Tories (or at least what we know so far) has been forced into the open. You can't keep these things secret forever. The more you do that the more they fester. Enormously wealthy Belize based businesmen buying undue influence in our politics? No thank you. Unacceptable. I'd say exactly the same whichever party was involved. Just so happens that in this case it's the Conservatives.

Cameron's classic jibe against Brown is that he is a ditherer. Cameron's own example of decisive leadership is to take 5 years to clarify whether or not Michael Ashcroft adhered to the terms he agreed on paying tax on his overseas earnings, in order to gain a peerage.

When he is obviously cornered the worst character traits of "Bullingdon Dave" rush to the surface - "it was done by me - right".
Cameron is simply not up to the job. There is yet time for decent British people to recognise this and keep him out of the highest ministerial office in the land.

When the Tories were doing well in the polls, one detected a slightly less confrontational stance from the BBC. After all, the BBC knows only too well which side their licence fee is buttered, and why risk antagonising an incoming government?

But now the Tories are slipping down the polls and another 5 years of Labour government seems a distinct possibility, the BBC appears once again emboldened to revert to its traditional ways.

The Ashcroft story is certainly of interest, no one can deny that, but given the fact that he has been cleared of any wrong-doing, one cannot help wondering why the BBC acts like a dog with a bone.

I would be much more interested to hear about links between Labour, the Unions and the KGB. According to the the Telegraph 5 March 2010, a powerful Trade Union leader in the 1970s was a KGB agent. The same report also discusses Michael Foot's relationship with the KGB.

I am very interested that David Cameron is taking advice from Mr Dyson about British maufacturing.

Didn't Mr Dyson decide that to make bigger profits he would shut his UK manufacturing base and ship it all out to China?

Does David Cameron think that he can fool the Briish public. He has known about Lord Ashcroft's status for years. Cameron is being very economical with the truth at best, and at worst is lying. I suspect it's the latter. What a hypocrite.
Gordon Hutchison

Isn't this last weeks news? Why are the BBC so interested in driving this story?

"He was responding to a report by the inventor and entrepreneur Sir James Dyson's into how to make the UK the leading high tech exporter in Europe" - is this the same Dyson who relocated jobs to a more "employer friendly" country - i.e. lowest possible wages, conditions etc. and "light-touch" taxation? What a patriot Dyson is.... take the education, cradle to the grave, then do an Ashcroft.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

Well he would say that wouldn't he! That Ashcroft is standing down after the election to spend more time with his media empire is another way of hoping the situation does away. Plan A (burying head in sand for a few days) has not worked.

The answers required were not answered despite him claiming they were. He thinks we are stupid!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Now ask Gordon Brown if Lord Paul or any of the Labour non-doms will be a member of his government. Infact jus for a laugh try asking him if his Chancellor will still be his chancellor after the election. Maybe try asking him if he agrees with his chancellor that the forces of hell were unleashed against a member of the government.

You only do this interrogative style of interview against the Tories, would you like a hand to stay standing as you continually lean so far to the left? Oh sorry silly me... you have the guarantee from Labour to keep the Licence Fee!

Is this the same Dyson whose vacuum cleaners are now made in Malaysia leaving 800 people jobless in the UK ?

Pah!

Where's your priorities Nick?

I'd like to see an article by Nick Robinson titled "Brown defends 12 billion pound shortfall of spending on embattled troops" given that he was unable to find 12 Billion to spend on the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because "it will cost 3p on the basic rate of Income Tax" but only months later could find 78 billion pounds (a sum that equates to 18p on the Basic Rate of Income Tax!)to bail out the British Bankers who are still enjoying bonuses and luxury lifestyles whilst our troops are crouched in ditches and hiding behind mud walls as the crack of deadly bullets pass by and ocassionally wipe out yet another young soldier's life ..... fat chance!

13 years of missed opportunities and yet we end the 13 years of waste discussing whether a Non-Dom should have been more frank when he has not committed any crime nor parliamentary rules any more than the Non-Doms who bankroll the Labour Party ..... meanwhile the crack and whistle of bullets continue to fly in Afghanistan in an almost endless and pointless war to which this Labour Party committed the United Kingdom!

Gordon Brown is an "empty suit" clinging to power for the sake of power yet he and his Labour party are devoid of any ideas other than to criticise competitor political parties and meanwhile this dullard and his party spends, spends, spends but entirely does so on the wrong things and they are completely wasteful and stupid in how they spend other people's money. That would be a much more fruitful discussion!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"There is yet time for decent British people to recognise this and keep him out of the highest ministerial office in the land."

Shame we never got the chance to do the same with Brown, eh Peteholly??

Brown was too scared to put his credentials to the "decent british people". He didnt even have the guts to do it to his own party!!!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

So the mods are very protective of their own today is this on Mandys orders as well

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well we can see that DC know's that you need to pay off debt

WHEREAS GB ONLY SEEMS TO BE ABLE TO PILE ON THE DEBT

GB is a Debt junkie

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

NR there is nothing here of interest, lets start with the ever increasing number of strikes and the complete lack of commentary from GB about them?

250,000 civil servants on strike , as there redundancy will go done from £76K to £60K and know one noticed that they were on strike,

Seems the Cutting could start there.

Try compare and contrasting '79 with '10 from and end of labour Governement position , ie the focus should be on what the Labour has done , what they have not done and what they will not do

Are we in a worse position than in '79 than '10 , remembering that we do not have Oil and Gas to help bail us out

what would another year of Brown mean.

Would labour try and oust brown if they scrap a minority gov, and what would happen then ?

These are the REAL political question of the age but you do not answer them,

why where 2 child killer let out at the age of 18 on labours watch ?

they say they want more rapist convicted and that is the point , guilt does not matter as long as the states look good, because once nside they will be let out again so its all SPIN,SPIN

That where the meaty jorno bones are NR can you not smell them

We should be more interested in Dyson's blueprint for our economic future and the Tories support for such than the Ashcroft affair.

Everyone is talking about Ashcroft on the basis that he'll be the anti-democratic back seat driver of a Tory Government policy bought by his billions. What rubbish! Ashcroft isn't Ecclestone!

The Conservative Party was bankrupt before Lord Ashcroft turned up, Cameron may be right when he says that Ashcroft is only responsible for 1% of funds this year but how much as a percentage did he stump up between 2000 and 2009? They needed his cash so they turned a blind eye to his tax situation, why can't they just be honest about it? The terrible truth for the Tories is that without Ashcroft they wouldn't be here today....I wonder what he expects in return? What will happen if they lose the election? Will he want it all back? :)

#26 totally agree and what more we have more superfisal announcements about "new" spend", bet its diverted money, for vehicle and helicopters

Someone should start digging about the "NEW" 22 Chinooks as that is not alol it s seems, that a gaint juciy bone for you NR

NR can we have some more on the labour MP's that were KGB agents ?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Good to see the conservative party exposed. Despite the new veneer, for me, it is an irredeemably heartless party; sadly the people I know who will be most harmed by a Tory government don't vote.

#25 a good comment and others have made the same about Dyson, so what is the problem and what is the solution

Abviosly Dyson needs to remain competitive otherwise the whole lot will go down the river.

Is it the tax heavey and benifits system is too genourous (25k for doign nothing) and that if we had lower taxes we might have more jobs and less people on benifits ?

yeah gordo legalacy spend spend spend for control control control reasons

Nick Robinson

is clearly not biased in anyway.

Anyone who suggests that is clearly wrong.

Ashcroft has a lot to answer for.

Cameron is weak.

Labour should never be questioned in the same way as the Tories.

My conditioning is complete.

Newspeak is the way should be adhered to at all times.

balanced thought,

"What you really should have asked him is how can he claim to have taken a lead on expenses when he claimed for additional housing allowance and only had one mortgage."

Yes, a bit off. Always surprises me slightly, the lack of fuss from the BBC about this. I'm not one for flinging the Beeb pro Con bias nonsense about - lazy and inadequate substitute for intelligent commentary - but if I was so inclined this particular matter would feed that inclination.

Saga

"I'd say exactly the same whichever party was involved. Just so happens that in this case it's the Conservatives."

So, do these non-doms have to come from Belize for you to criticise them, or have I missed all your posts about how bad it is that Labour takes a large slice of cash from many different non-dom donors?

Please can we start debating the real issues affecting our country??

We have an ecomomy that is as good as bankrupt, senior memebers of the CBI yesterday saying that the current governments plans are nowhere near enough to haul us out of trouble, and yet we still get reports on whether the PM is a bully, non-dom donations, and taxes on dogs!

I depair - how about a proper debate on the economy, nhs, transport etc etc (and labour and tories properly telling us their plans instead of just mocking eachother)!!

PeteHolly

I'd rather have someone who said "it was me. I did it" than someone who's response is always "nope, not me, I wasn't there, it's not my fault and you can't prove it was, nothing to do with me, move along, nothing to see here"

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Gordon Hutchison

" He has known about Lord Ashcroft's status for years. Cameron is being very economical with the truth at best, and at worst is lying."

And of course you can prove this. Can't you? Because otherwise you'd just be making stuff up to try and smear someone else, and you wouldn't do that - would you?

Robert LL,

"I am very interested that David Cameron is taking advice from Mr Dyson about British maufacturing. Didn't Mr Dyson decide that to make bigger profits he would shut his UK manufacturing base and ship it all out to China?"

Mmm. Even more interesting is where the advice on Education is coming from. Carol Vorderman. If you saw the car crash TV which was Question Time on Thursday you will understand why this is a worry.

Nick Robinson

is clearly not biased in anyway.

Anyone who suggests that is clearly wrong.

Ashcroft has a lot to answer for.

Cameron is weak.

Labour should never be questioned in the same way as the Tories.

My conditioning is complete.

Newspeak is the way and should be adhered to at all times.

(This cleared the Mods in 10 seconds flat funny that)

Sorry I forgot to add Mandy has no influence on the BBC what so ever.

Mods are you based in romm 101?

Balancedthought (not)

And so you go on again. Yes the Tories have taken Ashcroft's money for some time. The Labour party has accepted money from non-doms for some time too. I take it you are just as vexed with them?

You say "The Ashcroft money has already been spent in years of propaganda poured into marginal areas to distort our democracy". So what do Labour do with the money they get from their non-doms (or the unions for that matter). Do they use it to make charitable donations perhaps? Sponsor a Granny? Or do they use it to help their political cause? Maybe spending it supporting local candidates get elected, that sort of thing?

And finally "Why don't tories understand that paying tax is the right thing to do, we would have been able to withstand the collapse of casino capitalism if the rich did their patriotic duty. It makes me sick these people who wrap themselves in the Union flag and then don't pay there taxes"

Sifficult to know exactly where to start on this one. Unless of course you can tell me that all the Labour non-dom donors generously have ALL their tax paid in the UK, even tax that they are legally not obliged to? Sorry? You mean they don't? They only pay UK tax on their UK earnings? I'm shocked! Surely there's a law against this kind of thing. It's completely unacceptable . . . (I could go on, but I won't)

(Oh, and apologies for the post bomb - I only had 15 mins before I have to get the kids ready for school!)

I couldn't believe that this piece about Cameron's visit to Dyson made second slot in last night's ten o'clock news. To start with it was a non-story. Cameron visiting a design studio is not news!

Your questioning of Cameron (having bizarrely decided you had a story) would have been best served highlighting the irony of Dave using Dyson as a beacon of British endeavour when Dyson moved 800 jobs from Malmesbury to Malaysia. How Dave expects us to reach full employment (the thrust of his argument) on that basis baffles me.

Ashcroft is a sideshow.This story demonstrated Cameron's lightweight grasp of commerce which is more worrying with regard to a Prime Minister in waiting, and Nick you missed it!

"I'd say exactly the same whichever party was involved."

{cough, cough}BULLDUST!{cough, cough}

36#

"The terrible truth for the Tories is that without Ashcroft they wouldn't be here today....I wonder what he expects in return? "

Terrible truth for you chum, is that without the unions, you'd have faced a winding up order.

Without the unions, you still WILL face a winding up order.

Wonder what THEY expect in return? Beer and sarnies in No10?

LMAO.

Nick,

I am a great admirer of your works but, to be blunt, shame on you for playing Mandelson's out-of-tune harp. As far as I can guess, the only thing which has happened re Aschroft is that the honours committee agreed a less punitive arrangement than suggested by Hague because they thought the original one inequitable versus arrangements they had seen for Labour or LibDem candidates. In other words, nothing significant against Ashcroft happened at all.

I could say that we should see more coverage of the LibDems taking (and not returning) money from a criminal and Labour receiving vast amounts from non-dom donors. In terms of fairness, we should have been given that already under the understandings on even-handed coverage from the BBC.

But what I think we should really do is focus on the election issues.

4. At 10:41pm on 08 Mar 2010, bright-eyedwendym
It was refreshing that Andrew Marr pressed Harriet Harman on Labour's numerous non-doms and her reaction demonstrated how surprised and unprepared Labour politicians are to have this particular issue raised with them when they are so keen to raise it about others.

It... she was hilarious. Best comedy on the BBC in a while. I take it that she was not expecting such a suggestion from such a quarter.

More seriously, there is a danger in 'two wrongs' not so much making a right but allowing both wrongs to simply carry on in the mutual mire.

However, by not calling out the other parties' equal wallowing up to their necks, the BBC, its reporters and coverage is merely ensuring that a pendulum merely swings while the abuses persist.

On Mr. Dyson my understanding is that it was a legitimate strategy of survival, keeping the value of the intellectual capital, design ,etc in the UK where we can compete and excel, whilst sending the manufacturing to the best place to compete in putting together bits and bobs to sell at competitive prices.

I am sure it could have been kept here, and in light of the brand owner's affiliations such as Mr. Mandelson would have been first to arrange a subsidy or scrappage scheme using taxpayers' money to support yet another noble exercise in localisation.

Bring back Laura Kuenssberg.

Either that, or just set the link for this blog to Labourlist and see if you can spot the difference.

Has anyone actually accused Lord Ashcroft of doing anything illegal in making these donations if so then there is a real story but I suspect that this is not the case. If the system is so wrong labour has had 12 years to change it.

As a businessman it comes as no surprise that he supports the Tories. He should be within his rights to spend his money as he wants just as the unions (and to be fair other business leaders)feel they will gain from a labour government and so back them.

We are a country with real difficulties and an election coming up. The media should be concentrating on putting the hard questions on policy and track record to Brown and Cameron so the country can make a proper choice and not get dragged into these sorts of sideshows where I suspect both parties have many skeletons.

Mr Robinson..Have you never noticed the irony in your repeated posts about Ashcroft?

You bang on about the time it has taken for the Tories to come clean about his tax status....

..Yet you never respond to repeated accusations of your own bias,and your refusal to question the Government about the tax status of their own non doms.

Nick - This story is passed it's sell buy date.
Move on Nick otherwise people will think you are biased towards the labour party.
I know you may not realise this but labour and the lib dems have received donations from non doms.
Another more interesting story you may not have heard is that labour are already making massive spending cuts. Can you remember Brown saying labour investment versus tory cuts.
You have not told us yet how Mandleson managed to afford his London villa.
What about Harriet hubby and that seat. Nothing wrong there I guess.
Nick you haven't told us anything about labour for a long time. In fact it's since Jack Straw told you off.
Ah well got to go now, someone's got to put food on the table.

Move on Nick , you'll get over it

Bring back Laura Kuenssberg.

Brumroad: well said! When will the BBC use the licence fee money (that pays their wages) with some respect and report on the important issues?

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

@ 43 - I see our super sensitive (refer anything damaging to Cameron) poster is out and about this morning. Excellent!

I am amazed at the amount of media interest in Lord Ashcroft and the utter lack of interest in the Labour Council of Glasgow.
We have had an addict as head of council who had been warned of the iffy company he kept by Strathclydes drug squad .
Said chap resigned then scarpered ,presumably pursued by a bear, and the only thing coming out of GCC is
" Nasty SNP for daring to ask for an enquiry as to his behaviour over the last few years and who got contracts for what and for why!"
Now correct me if I am wrong , but all of a sudden the opinionated chap who is Sec Of State for Scotland has suddenly become most curiously silent.
In his place , stepping up to the plate is our brave wee Mr Cairns - who apparently resigned last year , having been involved in a failed coup, out to feebly attack the SNP Government and given plenty of media space so to do.

Are you journalists becoming as loathed as politicians and estate agents or have you always been loathsome?

'3. At 10:40pm on 08 Mar 2010, richard plackett wrote:
NIck why are you still going on about Lord Ashcroft? David Cameron was trying to talk today about job creation. It may have escaped your knowledge but the UK has to create at least two million private sector jobs to replace those at risk in the public sector when the government rebalances its finances. That is what David Cameron was trying to talk about today and it is what you should be concentrating on.'

Nick keep delving into this shady business. There is no doubt much to uncover. Ignore the pious 'you should be concentrating on' David Cameron's policy statements of certain contributors, they are hypocritical i.e. when it involves Labour policy statements these people don't want to talk policy they would rather talk about bullying or some other silly put up job. Also it is not coincidental that DC went to see Dyson yesterday as he like Ashcroft are both unpatriotic business men who put profits in front of British Jobs. British jobs for British workers is what we want. Cameron and his party have this alarming unpatriotic streak running through them e.g. during the recent Davos forum it was said that Cameron and Osborne spent all their energies running down our country rather than promote it as any decent patriotic person would. A shady business indeed.

I’m confused – hypothetically, I own a large company in another country, which makes me a lot of money. Presumably I pay that country tax on that income. I also have interests in some British companies, which make a lot of money, and I pay tax. Why should I be expected to pay UK tax on the profits of the overseas company, which is already paying tax where it is based? I’m not a tax expert but I’m not sure how I could even declare that income on a UK tax return?
I spend a significant amount of time in the UK where I have been given a seat in its second tier of legislation as a Party representative – perfectly legitimately – otherwise we would now be talking about dismissal from the Lords for breaching the rules. I pitch up there regularly and contribute to the debates, but as I have ‘a bob or two’ I choose not to be a burden on the tax payer and claim any expenses (unlike many others who are equally ‘loaded’).
Let’s face it; we have a political system whereby political parties rely on external sources of funding in order to survive – not ideal, but far cheaper for the tax payer than having to rely on public grants. All political parties are ruthless in seeking funding and sail as close to the wind as possible in order to maximise their financial assets.
So why is this still a story ?

"For those more interested in the arguments about policy than personalities"

That's most of us, Nick, that's most of us.

Nick people are fed up with this non story, if you and the BBC are so obsessed with it, when are you going to interview Brown about their DODGY funding ?? Goes to prove the BBC are Labour bias.

David Cameron (minus one creepy eye) = Tony Blair

Nick,

Why do you continually churn out these anti-Tory stories, how about holding the government to account. I appreciate you have to probe the potentioal future government, but the BBC really should be impartial. Why don't you quiz Labour on their donors? Harmann looked so stupid with Marr on Sunday, really hypocritical on the non-dom status of their donors, funny really. But atleast he quizzed them. It seems that you just jump to what ever story Gordon sends to your blackberry.

Don't ban on about Ashcrofts significant part in the Tory party, when Lord Paul is in the Privy council.

Hold the government and GB to account. Are you going to write a story about the rise in violent crime, that the governmnet has repeatidly said is coming down, and gave the Tories aload of flack for, and now look, would it be fair to report this.....YES!
Or how about the Tax payers money used to find the black hole in the Tories budgeting for the the future government, big news that was, now to be revealed that Labour, using our money to attack the Tories got it wrong, report that.......Yes please, will you....No.
Or why not report that Labour are using our money to campaign around the country, is this right....no, will you report it....no!!!

Fairness please!!!

To counter all these accusations of bias, Nick, all you have to do is point to the 5 blogs you have penned about labour non doms and list the questions you have asked of brown about influence that either non doms (or perhaps unions) have over Labour.

Or shall I list them for you?

here they are:
"



"

Wow, tough questioning , Nick.

Nick Robinson

is clearly not biased in anyway.

Anyone who suggests that is clearly wrong.

Ashcroft has a lot to answer for.

Cameron is weak.

Labour should never be questioned in the same way as the Tories.

My conditioning is complete.

Newspeak is the way and should be adhered to at all times.

(This cleared the Mods in 10 seconds flat funny that)

Mandy has no influence on the BBC what so ever.

gordon never tell lies

Tony was the best PM ever

It was all Lady T's fault.

unbalancedthought @ 33

"...Why don't tories understand that paying tax is the right thing to do, we would have been able to withstand the collapse of casino capitalism if the rich did their patriotic duty. It makes me sick these people who wrap themselves in the Union flag and then don't pay there taxes"

- paying tax is the right thing to do - how very big of you! not one person on the planet, if given the chance to get a discount on their tax bill, would refuse it.
i wonder if you have chased this issue with equal vigour with labour and liberals?
if not, why not?
we have government ministers taking decisions on policy enforced on us all today, now, currently... conservatives are not in office and havent been for 13 years.

- we would have been able to withstand the collapse of casino capitalism if the rich did their patriotic duty - ahhhh the anti thatcher politics of the past rears its uglyhead once more.
we wouldnt have had a collapse if gordon brown had recognised that safeguards with the bank of england, were an essential factor in keeping the banks in check.
1.5 million extra civil servants under labour since 1997 equals 1.5 million extra jobs that the taxpayer has to fund!
i didnt hear any "socialists" complaining when we were having the boom that labour created... why not?

Grawth,

"Do these non-doms have to come from Belize for you to criticise them, or have I missed all your posts about how bad it is that Labour takes a large slice of cash from many different non-dom donors?"

No it's nothing to do with Belize, although that adds somewhat to the shady aura. But no, it's not really relevant. I'd prefer to see state funding for the main parties (hence dealing with the whole problem of undue influence) but as long as we're stuck with the current system I have no beef with non doms giving money. It's fine. Why shouldn't they? The issue with Ashcroft is the toxic combination of things - a very large amount of money from a single individual, the same individual vice chair of the party, the same individual running and financing a big chunk of the election campaign and of tory activism generally, the same individual allowed to hide his tax status when others have to be open, the same individual esconsed at the top table of the party with real influence. All in secret. All bought. Just money. This is a particular situation and it reflects badly on the Tories, no point trying to defend it by spurious comparisons with other parties. There IS no comparison. Can't defend the indefensible. Money can't buy you love ... why should it be able to buy you the Tory Party?

It would seem that the Unite union has been able to buy a safe Labour seat for one of its leaders and also has bought the Government's silence over the dispute between BA and Unite.

Some people would be disturbed at this seeming buying of a party but others will, of course, wriggle around and say it's "different".

I dont understand why this is a story at all. Here we are in the biggest crisis in our economy probably ever and we have to put up with this non story about Ashcroft. We have army chiefs claiming Brown starved our troops of money and alleging Brown is being economical with the truth and yet the focus is still on Ashcroft. If the story is about Camerons judgement where has the judgement in the Labour party been for the last 13 years that has brought Britain to this poor state. I am beginning to think that the media is merely trying to make this election more exciting by giving Brown a hand.

To those who mention Dyson. I have listened to Dysons speeches and read his articles, he has exactly the right approach to get Britain working again. His ideas are invaluable. Yes he left Britain as many other business people did, because the Labour Government made it very difficult to operate in the UK. With high taxation and complicated rules that have to be followed under this Labour government it has made owning a business very difficult. Why would you stay in Britain if you want to be successful under these circumstances? Some of the public seem to think that those who take the time, trouble and investment to start a business owe something to the public in Britain. They don't and anybody would move to better opportunities if they could and pay less taxation. The public don't seem to mind if its a celebrity who pays no UK tax but earnes their money in Britain. I recall Dyson saying he could no longer operate under the mass of paperwork Labour have created for business to complete in order to run his company.

Business people in the private sector who make their own opportunities and have paid high taxation for the privilege, owe nothing to Britain. Its time people realised this and voted in a Government that is more friendly to business needs. This is the only way to create wealth in the UK and get Britain working again.

Mr Robinson...Now that Lord Paul has said he will give up his non dom status and comply with the new rules..can we expect 5 blogs from you on the subject..and some probing reporting on the other Labour non dom donors?

I see lord Paul has said he will give up his non-dom status and comply with new rules. Why are the media not chasing this story.

56#

Agreed.

I know it might seem a bit twisted to enjoy watching someone drowning, but Harriet... Harriet was completely at sea, floundering like a good 'un.

Never expected it from Marr.

Mind, you on reflection, I'm guessing Harriet wasnt expecting it either! Probably thought she'd be getting the usual brandy and cigars treatment that she gets from the Political Officer - I mean, Editor!

64. At 09:00am on 09 Mar 2010, sagamix wrote:
balanced thought @ 33

"What you really should have asked Cameron is how can he claim to have taken a lead on expenses when he claimed for additional housing allowance and only had one mortgage."

I was surprised there wasn't more fuss about that. Within the rules of course, but still."

You HOPED there would be more fuss and tried to make one but most people saw it for the total non story it was.

Amazing, all that claimed intellect and all you can come up with time and time again is "Mortgage and Eton".

Did you have a look on Monster? Good web site. Lots of jobs. You could at least write a CV? We'd help. We all would, I'm sure.

Tom Bradby over at ITN has a far more balanced view on it.

Much more cordial over there. No yapping Labour lapdogs polluting the atmosphere...

He says....

"Still not answering the question.

08 Mar, 2010

Four days after Lord Mandelson told us that all Labour donors should own up to their tax status, the party still refuses to answer our questions on the subject.

It is true that the Ashcroft affair raised significant questions about David Cameron’s judgement, but he has come clean and taken his kicking (even if it was only because he knew the issue would dog him throughout the election campaign).

What we have on the other side of the divide is the idea that a party which has imposed significant new taxes on the British people may be funded by businessmen who do not pay tax here on their worldwide income.

Does that seem right to you?"

There you go Nick. Your opposite number can do it.

Why cant you?

Talking of Party donations, my son off his own back got himself a saturday job, he received his first paypacket last saturday :)

He was shocked to discover that he was paying tax :( and that he had a percentage of pay deducted and paid directly to a union. That union gives funds to Labour. He did nt join the union, but all the staff in the firm he works for are automaticaly enroled to the union! And looking at his pay slip it looks like the union fees are taken BEFORE tax has been calculated. IE the tax is about right if you take his pay, subtract the union fees and then calculate the tax.

Hi Nick

Can I suggest you interview some ex British Steel pensioners to ascertain their views about the appointment to the Lords of Mr Paul?

Far be it for me to suggest that this would already have taken place in different circumstances?

68 - Amen.

As neat a summary of the position as possible.

As to why it's a "story", you could try putting it to Nick.

james,

"how about holding the government to account."

That's the exact job of the Opposition. Do you think the BBC and the Conservative Party should be at one?

Nick

I think the way you have covered this is beyond reproach.

You of all of the Political Editor have doggedly stuck with this most important story when other editors have been diverted to less important issues such as the chiefs of the Armed forces saying that Gordon Brown PM lied to a public enquiry that he setup. And other minor issues like Gordon Brown cynically using people who are risking their lives for us on a daily basis as a political back drop to take attention away for his appearance at that enquiry.

Tom Bradby of ITV news has not had your single mindedness and has started asking questions of the Labour party about their non doms but you to your great credit have not let your focus sway for one minute from this single issue of ASHCROFT.

Ashcroft is of extreme importance which can be seen by the focus Lord Mandleson has placed on it a focus only surpassed by your own.

It is important that this Tory non dom should be pursued at all costs and that you should not allow your eyes to fall from this prize by being sidelined by calls to investigate other parties as well.

The Labour Party is at a great disadvantage as they have not been able to raise as much money as the Tories.

This is due to their falling membership and the loss of trade union money although they do still get millions from from a small number of unions.

The government has been able to ease the problems for the sitting MP's by giving them £10000 of Tax payers money each year so that they can fight off challengers from other parties such as the Greens and the independent candidates.

So please Nick can we have a lot more coverage of the Ashcroft non dom issue and please don't be swayed by all of these critics who want you to cover other less important issues or ask non dom questions of the Labour Party.

Why are you continusally attacking the tories on this. To get in the Lords he made an agreement with the Queen, the goverment and the Lords appoitment committee!

He agreed to live in the UK and he did not agree to pay tax on foregin earnings in the UK. This was accepted and agreed 10 years ago by a Labour goverment and a Labour majority appoitment committee? Yet all you talk about is what the tories knew?

Its like blaiming the tories for the 10p tax issue, after all they were on the commette who voted through the 2007 budget!

So almost no coverage of this dead in the water story on ITV News at Ten; but still the BBC does newlabour bidding and bleats on about it without the faintest regard for UNITE; Lord Paul or any of the other newlabour cash machines.

Far more interesting was Andrew Rawnsley on David Cameraon Uncovered on C4 and the sorry spectacle of Lord Mandelson trying to look indignant about Cameron';s background while claiming he had 'no problem with it'. These people are like demented students; desperate for acceptance into the big boys club while standing on the touchline hurling stones at it. I wonder if he realises how much he has begun to despise himself for throwing stones on behalf of a prime minister he clearly detests. He cuts a very lonely figure doing righteous indignation into the camera again and again. The problem is, as he well knows, he has completely failed to capture the mood of the public with this 'butter wouldn't melt' act. On the contrary, the public is watching with contempt at his 'I may be a Lord, but I'm still one of you' routine.

So as the general election approaches, newlabour is confronted with its nemesis; the very thing that they predicted about the tories is happening to them. Rather than the tories falling apart underscrutiny, we find ourselves shining a light on newlabour and a very dirty grub pops out. A grub incapable of proposing any way forward, a grub smothered in pan factor, a grub tarnished with the misdeeds of the last thriteen years and a grub incapable of changing its politics of smear and innuendo.

Call an election.

Nick

If the Tories are in Ashcroft's pocket, why are the Tories the party responsible for a change in the rules that will deem anyone sitting in the House of Lords a UK domicile? Wouldn't they be arguing for the situation to remain unchanged?

Not just Nick, but Sagamnix, pdavies65, leftie10

In fact, everyone critical of the supposed influence of Ashcroft.

If you can't answer that simple point, you have no point to make.

"14. At 11:43pm on 08 Mar 2010, peteholly wrote:
Cameron's classic jibe against Brown is that he is a ditherer. Cameron's own example of decisive leadership is to take 5 years to clarify whether or not Michael Ashcroft adhered to the terms he agreed on paying tax on his overseas earnings, in order to gain a peerage."

Sorry he aggreed to live in the UK he did not agree to pay tax on oversea earnings. IF Mandy will open his filing cabinet and get out the copy of the agreement that he keeps saying he cant find it will prove exactly what was agreed with the Labour majority appoitments commettee 10 years ago. This is only an issue due to the election!

I see the "Blame Auntie" whingers have been bussed in again.

Shooting the messenger always looks desperate.

'74. At 09:18am on 09 Mar 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
Nick Robinson

is clearly not biased in anyway.

Anyone who suggests that is clearly wrong.

Ashcroft has a lot to answer for.

Cameron is weak.

Labour should never be questioned in the same way as the Tories.

My conditioning is complete.

Newspeak is the way and should be adhered to at all times.

(This cleared the Mods in 10 seconds flat funny that)

Mandy has no influence on the BBC what so ever.

gordon never tell lies

Tony was the best PM ever

It was all Lady T's fault.'

74. At 09:18am on 09 Mar 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
Nick Robinson

is clearly not biased in anyway.

Anyone who suggests that is clearly wrong.

Ashcroft has a lot to answer for.

Cameron is weak.

Labour should never be questioned in the same way as the Tories.

My conditioning is complete.

Newspeak is the way and should be adhered to at all times.

(This cleared the Mods in 10 seconds flat funny that)

Mandy has no influence on the BBC what so ever.

gordon never tell lies

Tony was the best PM ever

It was all Lady T's fault.

74. At 09:18am on 09 Mar 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
Nick Robinson

is clearly not biased in anyway.

Anyone who suggests that is clearly wrong.

Ashcroft has a lot to answer for.

Cameron is weak.

Labour should never be questioned in the same way as the Tories.

My conditioning is complete.

Newspeak is the way and should be adhered to at all times.

(This cleared the Mods in 10 seconds flat funny that)

Mandy has no influence on the BBC what so ever.

gordon never tell lies

Tony was the best PM ever

It was all Lady T's fault.


Hallelujah! It is a beautiful thing indeed when those who have tread the wrong path finally see the light. Now that is something worthy of comment.

76#

Its because Ashcroft has been effective.

Thats what really p*sses Labour off more than anything.

For all the money they've been given by the Unions (which was recycled public money anyway) and by Non-Doms who rip off their own workers pension funds a la Robert Maxwell (yes, you Lord Paul, Privy Councillor), they're still in debt up to their eyeballs and they're not getting the results they need.

Thats why they keep on flogging this dying horse. Its the only possible hook they've got to hang the conservatives on... forgetting, rather conveniently that they're hung on exactly the same one themselves.

So, for Ashcroft to pile all that money into the tories and for it still to be only about 1% of what they're receiving... boy, that stings. That really, really stings. Hence all the lowest common denominator yelping.

They just cant admit it. Mind you, they cant admit to anything... Lying is in their DNA. They will keep on lying so long as you can see their chests moving when they breathe.

Same Old Envy.

Same Old Labour

"A Future Failed For All."

76 - I asked you to name one policy that Ashcroft has influenced to his own personal benefit.

You singularly failed to rise to the challenge.

I pointed out one whopping great policy (deeming members of the H of L to be UK domicile) which the Tories are introducing that would be to Ashcroft's disadvantage and asked you to comment on that.

You couldn't.


There you are again, standing in front of a horse and insisting it's a cow.

Have you visited Monster yet? THOUSANDS of jobs. Surely there must be ONE you can do? Get you out in the real world, meet real people. Do you the world of good. I'm only thinking of you, you know.

If you check your own poll tracker, you'll see the trend is that when the Libs go down, labour go up. Tories have been fairly consistent. The Libs need to step up a bit, they are the one's who are dropping off.

The trouble for Nick Robinson at the moment is that things are relatively quiet at the moment and so he has to keep a long running story going. There is a huge amount of posturing and phoney electioneering going on, as the real election has not been called. Everybody is jockeying for position on the grid but the race hasn't started - a bit like the horses lining up at the start of the Grand National.

The real stories are happening in the constituencies, but that is too much like hard work - being a London based national journalist. Most of the minor parties and Independents do not have any sleaze behind them and so there is no story. The main parties all have questionable funders and so the negative stories are being pursued, and they are also easy to cover. The question is, are we really interested in them in a way that matches the coverage?

I must agree with the irony that has already been pointed out, that Cameron uses Dyson as a model for future British progress. He is a great inventor with a superb product that he has made for him abroad. If the Tories think this a model to build our economy on then it is no surprise they are dropping in the polls!! Why didn't Nick Robinson look at that aspect of Cameron's policy in his interview?

"Labour peer and donor Lord Paul will end his controversial "non-dom" status from the next tax year, he has said."

From the BBC story.

But surely, Nick, it CAN'T be controversial. I mean, it's politics so if it was controversial and political, surely you'd be doing blogs on it.

Since 1996, he's been sat in the House of Lords, not paying MILLIONS of pounds in UK tax.

He even got made Privy Counsellor last year.

Anyone with a fair balance would be drawing comparisons with Ashcroft and asking questions. Do you know any such person Nick?

To avoid the risk of being accused of churning out another anti-Conservative post I'm moving on from Dyson and Ashcroft.

It shows great honour of immediate past president George W Bush to encourage David Cameron to use his newly forged electoral pact with Northern Ireland's UUP to get them behind devolved policing in the province.

It's good to see Mr Cameron being introduced gently to RealPolitik.