Morning:
8°c
Dear me, things must be bad for the Conservatives: even Lord Ashcroft has told us his tax status.
We learn that he is a non-dom just before the Freedom of Information request would have revealed what most of Westminster worked out some time ago. It is the least surprising revelation since Amy Winehouse admitted a drink problem.
For what else could explain his bizarre refusal to confirm his UK tax status, 10 years after vowing to, as a foreign resident, in order to take up his peerage?
Many people worry about Lord A's funding of key marginal seats. That is not my concern. He was one of the first Conservatives to see that the Tory machine, in areas it needs to win to transform the political map, was outdated.
He has always backed the party's move to the centre and stipulated that his donations be used to make the party campaign more efficiently. None of that seems reprehensible to me. What is wrong is that this well-directed help has been conducted on terms which are unhealthily opaque.
As a condition of becoming a peer, Lord Ashcroft promised the Conservative Party leadership “unequivocally” that he would become a permanent UK resident. On his own version of events, he has not done so, and has arranged some form of “longterm” residency.
Even now, he is tantalising us with his vague “undertakings” and “negotiations” with the tax authorities. What could more successfully reinforce the appearance of purblind privilege in the Conservative Party, precisely at the time it needs to strengthen its appeal to the more financially modest end of Middle England? Most people do not have “undertakings” or lengthy talks about status with the Revenue — we just pay the bills, then work to pay the next ones.
The cool response of the Tory leader — he says he is “delighted” by Lord Ashcroft's belated openness — conceals frustration behind the scenes. Since the end of last year, senior member of Team Cameron had been concerned that his Lordship's tax status needed to be settled. Mr Cameron effectively said as much by decreeing that non-doms may not sit in the Lords after the election.
Lord Ashcroft was impervious. Eric Pickles, the affable party chairman, let slip his frustration when he told me last month for a Radio 4 documentary on party funding that he “did not know his status ... if I knew I would certainly tell you, but I don't know.”
The absurdity of the chairman having to say publicly that he was being kept in the dark by the deputy chairman highlighted the bizarre nature of these obfuscatory arrangements: it's not as if he couldn't pop next door to ask.
It also entangles the party in half-truths. The Tories insist that Lord Ashcroft is not their biggest donor — which he isn't at the moment, because he has reduced donations over the past couple of years. But taken cumulatively since 2001 and beyond that, he certainly has been.
It is now two years since a leading figure on Team Cameron expressed to me “huge reservations” about the donor's status. George Bridges even resigned from Central Office in protest at the spread of Ashcroftian influence — and has now found a parallel berth with shadow Chancellor Osborne, as a MoG (Mate of George).
Frankly, Mr Cameron and William Hague, who was also a beneficiary of Lord Ashcroft's largesse during his leadership, have been led quite a dance by the Belize-based man of mystery.
Ultimately, the Tories allowed all this to happen for one reason alone: they wanted the money. It is awfully reminiscent of that bit in Sense and Sensibility where poor Marianne finally has to accept that she has been sidelined by Willoughby for Miss Grey “and her twenty thousand pounds”.
For upwards of £10 million — more than five of it since 2001 — Lord Ashcroft has been able to do as he wished.
The counter argument that other parties accept money from non-doms has some force. Sir Ronnie Cohen managed to persuaded Gordon Brown as Chancellor that a benign Capital Gains Tax regime for (you guessed it) non-doms was a great idea. Lord Paul is a generous non-domiciled Labour donor while Indian steel magnates the Mittals also bankroll Mr Brown's party.
Still, the comparison runs out pretty fast, and discerning politicians such as Michael Gove and George Osborne should not waste their credibility on it. None of Labour's donors has sought the influence Lord Ashcroft has achieved: nor donated anywhere near his totals. His status is doubly important because he has a key party role and a seat in the Lords, which he did a deal to secure and does not appear to have fulfilled.
I asked a close friend of Ashcroft's why he had not declared his status long ago: “Because people like you keep asking him to,” was the reply.
The wealthy so like doing things their own way. I sat next to a businessman at dinner last week who only ate hamburgers in the evening and was thus served five miniature ones while the rest of us ate the main course. With Extreme Net Worth status comes the expectation that one can arrange things the way one likes. Mainly, that is not a harmful state of affairs and it adds to the gaiety of life.
But when it affects the perception of politics as indulging wealthy donors, at the same time as MPs are being hauled over the coals for expenses infringements and misjudgments, it becomes more than just playful eccentricity.
There is a role for the private donor in politics but it is not what we have now. The amounts are too large, the restrictions promised by politicians too elastic, the influence-broking too obvious. As one scandal is cleaned up, another loophole opens.
If Mr Cameron is, as he says, serious about transparency in politics, let him pledge to reform it along the lines of the Canadian system. It limits the power of trade unions and private donors by providing matching state funding to encourage a far wider range of smaller givers.
We need some way out of this donor trap. Lord Ashcroft is not the first of his breed, nor the last, to bring muddle and mistrust along with his millions.
Reader views (6)
Cameron should ask Lord Ashcroft to resign. He is putting his desire to become the next PM before the integrity of the Tory Party, could we trust with transparency over other Tory issues that would be in the public interest if he was? The impression you get from this unedifying revelation is that not one member of the Tory party had the temerity to approach this man and directly ask him exactly what his tax status was. They are all obviously in thrall to the man, his money has them spell bound. The truth has only been revealed because the electoral Commission were on to him, it was not a voluntary admission.We do not need people like this at the helm of British politics he should resign or Cameron should put the integrity of the Tory party before the money. He would gain more votes that way. We want upfront, honest representatives in Parliament not creeps who buy influence with bribes.
- Patricia Vincent, bromley, 05/03/2010 15:07
Report abuse
Steve I'd rather have you tell us what makes him the enemy of the people as I haven't heard of this and I would have thought if this statement is true the Labour Party might need to know so they can use that against the Tories to!!
- Pat, sussex, 04/03/2010 15:25
Report abuse
Can you see the Labour Govt. agreeing to the Canadian system? Without the Trade Unions they would be skint! I understand Lord Paul is a Privy Councillor - the words Pot and Kettle come to mind.
- Anne, Leyburn England, 04/03/2010 08:48
Report abuse
So what attracted the Tories to Lord Ashcroft?
that's a bit like Mrs Merton's question to "the lovely" Debbie McGee: "So, what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?"
if the tories are this sneaky and dodgy before the election, god knows what we can expect if/when they win.
- Merle, london, uk, 03/03/2010 22:20
Report abuse
Look...who cares? Neither the Conservatives, the Labour Party nor the Lib Dems can claim to be squeaky clean over funding. Nobody in the real world gives a damn about this. It's pure Westminster Village.
- Ken, Bexleyheath, 03/03/2010 15:08
Report abuse
In Belize, he is known as the enemy of the people - draw your own conclusions.
- Steve, London, 03/03/2010 11:57
Report abuse
